M/S. ORIENTAL HOTELS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the application of Rule 8D is not automatic and should only be applied if the assessee fails to compute the actual expenses incurred for earning exempt income to the satisfaction of the Revenue. Since the assessee had not computed its actual expenditure, the matter was remitted back to the AO for re-computation.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in the hotel business, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,05,444/- by invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D for disallowance of expenditure related to exempt income, which was subsequently confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was correctly applied, and if the application of Rule 8D is automatic without the assessee first computing actual expenses.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY
आदेश / O R D E R
Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Chennai, dated 29.09.2017 in for the assessment year 2014-15 passed U/s. 250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.
The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in Ld.AO amounting to Rs.5,05,144/- by invoking the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Rules.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in hotel business, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 admitting total income of Rs.2,93,85,350/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice U/s.143(2) & 142(1) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2015 & 25.05.2016 respectively. Finally assessment order was passed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 16.12.2016 wherein the Ld.AO had made addition of Rs.5,05,444/- towards disallowance of expenditure by invoking the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules and Rs.1,38,63,427/- towards income earned from its wholly owned subsidiary in Hong Kong. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.5,05,44/- made by the Ld.AO by invoking the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules, against which the assessee is in appeal before us.
At the outset, we find that with respect to disallowance U/s.14A of the Act, we had held in &
1730/Chny/2016 in the case M/s. Sthithi Insurance Services Pvt. Ltd., vide order dated 18.06.2018 that application of Rule 8D is not automatic. If the assessee computes to the satisfaction of the Ld.Revenue Authorities the expenses incurred by it with respect to investments earning exempt dividend then the same should be disallowed. Only when such computation is not possible Rule 8D should be applied for computing the disallowance U/s.14A of the Act. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein below for reference:- “5.2 We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. It is apparent from the facts of the case, that the assessee has made huge investments in shares which earn dividend income exempt from tax. According to Section 14A of the Act the expenditure incurred towards earning exempt income cannot allowed as deduction from the taxable income of the assessee. In the case of the assessee, it is evident that for the process of decision making as to which shares the assessee has to invest, dis-invested, and at what point of time etc., will involve cost. Such expenditures incurred towards earning dividend income which is exempt from tax cannot be claimed as deduction from the taxable profit of the assessee company. As per the provisions of the Act, the assessee is bound to compute the actual expenses incurred by it towards investment that would earn exempt income and disallow the same. In the case of the assessee, such computation is neither made nor the expenditure towards earning exempt disallowed by the assessee. Therefore we are of the view that the Ld.AO was right in his realm to invoke the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Rules. Further it is pertinent to mention that there is no correlation between the dividend income earned by the assessee and the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards investment that earns exempt income. For example:- during a particular year the assessee would not have earned any dividend income though it has made heavy investments during the previous year or the earlier years, but the assessee is bound to incur cost for acquiring / maintaining /dis- investing such investments. Hence it cannot be inferred that the dividend income would be directly proportional to the expenditure incurred on the investment earning exempt income. Therefore we do not find any merit in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for having restricted the disallowance U/s.14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. However since the assessee has not computed its actual expenditure incurred towards the Ld.AO for both the assessment years thereby affording one more opportunity to the assessee to work out the actual expenditure incurred by it towards the investment that earn exempt income and disallow the same. We further hereby direct the Ld.AO to verify the computation submitted by the assessee for both the assessment years and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and merit.”
Since we have already decided the issue with respect to computation of disallowance U/s.14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules in the decision cited supra, we remit back the matter to the file of Ld.AO to compute the disallowance U/s.14A of the Act in the similar manner. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Order pronounced on the 20th August, 2018 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026