Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN
I.T.A. NO.100 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD
BANGALORE.
THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
RANGE-II, RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.)
AND:
M/S. KINGFISHER FINVEST INDIA LTD., UB TOWERS, LEVEL 12, UB CITY NO.24, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE-560001 PAN: AABCV9224B. ... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 17-10-2014
PASSED IN ITA NO.1368/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1368/BANG/2012 DATED 17-10-2014 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-II, BANGALORE.
THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the revenue.
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowance, when the Board’s Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 clearly states that disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule
8D is to be made even where the tax payer in a particular year has not earned any exempted income?”
Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the assessee was initially incorporated as Verigate Trading Private Limited. Subsequently, the assessee was taken over by UB Group of Mr.Vijay Mallya and was renamed as Kingfisher Radio Ltd. and thereafter, it was renamed as Kingfisher Finvest India Ltd. The assessee is an investment company and the main object of the Company is to make investment. It is also a holding company. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and notices dated 17.08.2009, 27.01.2010, 29.06.2010 and 02.08.2010 were issued to the assessee. In response to the notices, the representative of the assessee entered appearance. The Assessing Officer, by an order dated 17.09.2012, held that profit relating to loan was
Rs.519.61 crores as on 31.03.2007 whereas it was Rs.1507.39 crores as on 31.03.2008 and substantial investments have been made in the shares of Avantis Pharma Limited, Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., Kingfisher Aviation Training Ltd., United Spirits Ltd. and also Deccan Aviation Ltd. It was further held that the money borrowed has found its way directly to the investments and as the assessee does not have any other major business other than investments, therefore, the claim towards interest payment is directly related to the investments.
The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed the interest expenditure of Rs.57,92,44,082/- under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The aforesaid order was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 17.08.2012. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 17.10.2014, allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee inter alia on the
ground that until and unless there is a receipt of exempted income from the concerned Assessment Years, provision of Section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
Learned counsel for revenue, while inviting the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 5, MUMBAI VS. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LIMITED’ (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME – TAX VS. SYNDICATE BANK’ (2020) 115 TAXMANN.COM 287 (KAR), fairly submitted that sub-sections (2) and (3) were inserted in Section 14A by the Finance Act, 2006 and the aforesaid amendments are prospective in nature and apply in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. It is also pointed out that the assessment year in
question is 2008-09. It is further submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that since the assessee had not received any dividend on the investment, therefore, since there was no earning of maximum income, the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is not permissible. It is submitted that the aforesaid view which has been taken by the Tribunal is in contravention of law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAXOPP INVESTMENT LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI’ (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) as well as Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revenue and have perused the record. From perusal of paragraph 10 of the order passed by Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal has held that since the assessee had not received any
dividend on the investment and since there was no earning to exempt income, therefore, there can be no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. The aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra and is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in MAXOPP INVESTMENT LIMITED (supra). The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid decision, the relevant extraction of which is reproduced below for the facility of reference, has held as under: “40. We note from the facts in the State Bank of Patiala cases that the AO, while passing the assessment order, had already restricted the disallowance to the amount which was claimed as exempt income by applying the formula contained in Rule 8D of the Rules and holding that section 14A of the Act would be applicable. In spite of this exercise of apportionment of expenditure carried out by the AO, CIT(A) disallowed the entire deduction of expenditure. That view of the CIT(A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts,
the Punjab and Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct conclusion by affirming the view of the ITAT, though we are not subscribing to the theory of dominant intention applied by the High Court. It is to be kept in mind that in those cases where shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’, it becomes a business activity of the assessee to the deal in those shares as a business proposition. Whether dividend is earned or not becomes immaterial. In fact, it would be a quirk of fate that when the investee company declared dividend, those shares are held by the assessee, though the assessee has to ultimately trade those shares by selling them to earn profits. The situation here is, therefore, different from the case like Maxopp Investment Ltd. where the assessee would continue to hold those shares as it wants to retain control over the investee company. In that case, whenever dividend is declared by the investee company that would necessarily be earned by the assessee and the assessee alone. Therefore, even at the time of investing into
those shares, the assessee knows that it may generate dividend income as well and as and when such dividend income is generated that would be earned by the assessee. In contrast, where the shares are held as stock-in-trade, this may not be necessarily a situation. The main purpose is to liquidate those shares whenever the share price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove.”
In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court as well as Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which clearly provides that disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D has to be made even when the tax paid for a particular year is not earned in exempt income, the substantial question of law framed
by this Court is answered in negative and in favour of revenue.
In view of preceding analysis, the order of the Tribunal insofar as it pertains to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is hereby quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE