NAV BHARAT ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD.,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), JALPAIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2125/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 March 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of proportionate interest, holding that interest-free funds were sufficient to cover investments yielding exempt income. The disallowance of administrative expenditure was remitted for recomputation.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged disallowances made by the lower authorities under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The disallowances pertained to proportionate interest and administrative expenditure.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is justified when interest-free funds exceed investments yielding exempt income, and how administrative expenditure disallowance should be computed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B-SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM]

1.

This assesse’s appeal is directed against the CIT(A), Jalpaiguri’s order, dated 29- 08-2018 passed in case no. 50/CIT(A)/JAL/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the I.T Act, 1961 ( in short ‘Act’).

Heard both the sides. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking section 14A/r.w rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) proportionate interest and administrative expenditure disallowance(s) amounting to Rs.9,32,733/- and Rs. 59,127/- respectively totaling to Rs. 9,91,860/-. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s interest free funds amounts to Rs.3.48 crores as against its investments of Rs. 1.18 crores in yielding exempt income. I therefore reject the Revenue’s arguments in view of hon’ble Bombay high court’s decision in CIT V/s Reliance Utility Power Ltd 313 ITR 314 (Bom) that the necessary presumption in such a case is of utilization of interest free funds only. I therefore delete former disallowance component of Rs. 9,32,733/-.

3.

Coming to later administrative expenditure disallowance component of Rs. 59,127/- , I find that the Assessing Officer has rightly calculated the same at 0.5% of average value of investment prescribed in the statutory formula. I further find that there is no indication in lower authorities’ finding as to whether they have considered only the exempt income yielding investments or not as per hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in PCIT V/s REI Agro Ltd in ITA 220 of 2013. I therefore direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the impugned disallowance qua exempt income yielding investments only. Necessary computation to follow. .

4.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Court on 20-03-2019

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →