Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a financial service and investment banking provider, appealed against orders related to AYs 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19, challenging additions made under Section 14A and Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had earned exempt income but did not disallow certain expenses related to it in all years.
Held
The Tribunal held that the AO's dissatisfaction over the assessee's claim was evident from the assessment order's discussions. For AY 2014-15, it was held that no disallowance of interest expenses was required as the assessee's own funds exceeded investments, and for expenditure disallowance, the AO was directed to consider only investments yielding exempt income. Similarly for AY 2016-17 and 2018-19, the AO was directed to recompute expenditure disallowance based on investments yielding exempt income. For AY 2017-18, the disallowance was limited to the voluntarily disallowed amount by the assessee, not exceeding the exempt income.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D was correctly computed, and whether the addition for book profits under Section 115JB should be made without considering the Section 14A computation.
Sections Cited
14A, 115JB, Rule 8D(2)(ii), Rule 8D(2)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE
For Assessee : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Shri Himesh Jain For Revenue : Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR & Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 08-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09-08-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :
All theseappeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order(s) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (in short „Ld.CIT(A)‟) and relate to AYs. 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017- 18 & 2018-19. In all these appeals, the assessee is challenging the addition made by the AOu/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) and also addition made u/s. 115JB of the Act. Accordingly, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is a financial service provider and also renders investment banking services.
576, 577 & 578/Mum/2024 The AO noticed that the assessee has earned exempt income as detailed below, in these years:- A.Y. Exempt Income Disallowance by assessee 2014-15 38,58,048 NIL 2016-17 11,60,60,372 NIL 2017-18 1,16,837 10,00,000 2018-19 66,03,82,995 25,00,000 2.1. As noticed in the above table, the assessee did not make any disallowance for the AYs. 2014-15 and 2016-17u/s. 14A of the Act. In other two assessment years, the disallowance made by the assessee was Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 25 lakhs respectively. The AO noticed that the assessee has held huge non-current investments and also claimed interest expenses. Accordingly, the AO took the view that the disallowance made by the assessee is not in accordance with section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 („the Rules‟). Accordingly, he rejected the claim of the assessee and proceeded to compute the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules. The same was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) in all the assessment years and hence, the assessee has filed these appeals.
In all the four assessment years, the assessee has taken a legal ground contending that the AO has not recorded his dissatisfaction over the workings made by the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Accordingly, it was contended that the entire disallowance made by him u/s 14A should be deleted.However, on a perusal of the assessment orders, we noticed that the AO has referred to the quantum of investments made by the assessee, interest expenses incurred by the assesseeand also made observations about the claim of the assessee. Further, the AO has specifically recorded that he is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee. There should not be any dispute that the Statute did not provide for any specific method of recording dissatisfaction. In that case, the fact as to whether the AO has recorded dissatisfaction or not has to be deduced for the discussions made by 576, 577 & 578/Mum/2024 him in the assessment order. In the instant cases, in our view, it cannot be said that the AO has not recorded dissatisfaction over the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, we reject the above said legal contention of the assessee in all the four assessment years.
We shall first take up the appeal filed for the AY.2014-15. In this assessment year, the AO has computed disallowance of Rs.1,51,53,295/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D, which consisted of interest disallowance of Rs.1,34,88,396/- u/r 8D(2)(ii)and expenditure disallowance of Rs. 16,64,899/- u/s 8D(2)(iii). In so far as the disallowance made out of interest expenses, it is the submission of the assessee that the own funds available with it far exceeds the value of investments. Referring to the Balance Sheet, the Ld.AR submitted that own funds available with the assessee was Rs. 100.82 crores while the investments made by the assessee was Rs. 46.56 crores. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., [2014] 366 ITR 505 (Bombay), the Ld.AR contended that the disallowance of interest expenditure is not called for. 4.1. With regard tothe expenditure disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Ld.AR submitted that the AO should have considered only those investments which have yielded exempt income for the purpose of computing average value of the investments and should have computed the disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) accordingly. In support of this proposition, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon‟bleDelhi High Courtin the case of Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., (ITA No. 7/2020; dt. 07-10-2022) and also the decision rendered by the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi, ITAT) / 165 ITD 27. 4.2. We find merit in the above said submissions of the assessee. Since the own funds available with the assessee exceeds the value of investments, no disallowance out of interest expenses u/r 8D(2)(ii) is 576, 577 & 578/Mum/2024 called for. In respect of expenditure disallowance to be made u/r 8D(2)(iii) of I T Rules, we direct the AO to consider only those investments, which have yielded exempt income for the purpose of computing average value of investments and accordingly recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). 4.3. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO has added the disallowance computed by him u/s. 14A of the Act for computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. He submitted that the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal has held in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., (supra) that the addition to be made under clause (f) of explanation (1) to section 115JB(2) of the Act is required to be made without resorting to computation contemplated u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the tax authorities on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with a direction to compute the addition to be made under clause (f) of explanation (1) to section 115JB(2) of the Act on the basis of annual accounts of the assessee without having regard to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act.
We shall now take up the appeal filed for the AY. 2016-17. In this assessment year, the assessee did not make any disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. On the contrary, the AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,62,26,605/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I T Rules. 5.1. In this year, the AO has made disallowance of expenditure only under Rule 8D(2)(iii).The Ld.AR submitted that the AO should have considered only those investments which have yielded exempt income for the purpose of computing average value of the investments and should have computed the disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) accordingly. In support of this proposition, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon‟bleDelhi High Courtin the case of Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., (ITA No. 7/2020; dt. 07-10-2022) and also the decision rendered by the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT 576, 577 & 578/Mum/2024 vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi, ITAT) / 165 ITD 27. 5.2. We find merit in the above said submissions of the assessee.In respect of expenditure disallowance to be made u/r 8D(2)(iii) of I T Rules, we direct the AO to consider only those investments, which have yielded exempt income for the purpose of computing average value of investments and accordingly recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). 5.3. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO has added the disallowance computed by him u/s. 14A of the Act for computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. He submitted that the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal has held in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., (supra) that the addition to be made under clause (f) of explanation (1) to section 115JB(2) of the Act is required to be made without resorting to computation contemplated u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the tax authorities on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with a direction to compute the addition to be made under clause (f) of explanation (1) to section 115JB(2) of the Act on the basis of annual accounts of the assessee without having regard to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. We shall now take up the appeal filed for the AY. 2017-18. In this 6. assessment year, the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.1,16,837/-. The assessee computed disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act at Rs. 10 lakhs. However, the AO computed disallowanceunder Rule 8D and accordingly added a sum of Rs.10,40,43,577/-. 6.1. The Ld A.R submitted that the disallowance u/s 14A should not exceed the amount of exempt income. In support of his arguments, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon‟bleDelhi High Courtin the case of Joint Investments Ltd (ITA No.117/2015 dt. 25-02-2015). In this year, the assessee has voluntarily disallowed 576, 577 & 578/Mum/2024 Rs.10.00 lakhs u/s 14A of the Act. Further, the above said submission of the assessee is in accordance with the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court referred above. Accordingly, in our view,no further disallowance over and above that disallowed by the assessee in this year is called for. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the addition made by the AO in this year. 6.2. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO has added the disallowance computed by him u/s. 14A of the Act for computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. He submitted that the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal has held in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., (supra) that the addition to be made under clause (f) of explanation (1) to section 115JB(2) of the Act is required to be made without resorting to computation of contemplated u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the tax authorities on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with a direction to compute the addition to be made under clause (f) of explanation (1) to section 115JB(2) of the Act on the basis of annual accounts of the assessee.
We shall now take up the appeal filed for the AY. 2018-19. In this assessment year, the assessee earned exempt income of Rs. 66,03,82,995/-. The assessee computed disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act at Rs. 25.00 lakhs. However, the AO computed disallowanceunder Rule 8D(2)(iii) and accordingly added a sum of Rs. 11,29,44,293/-. 7.1. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO should have considered only those investments which have yielded exempt income for the purpose of computing average value of the investments and should have computed the disallowance u/r 8D(2)(iii) accordingly. In support of this proposition, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Courtin the case of Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd., (ITA No.7/2020; dt. 07-10-2022) and also the decision rendered by the 576, 577 & 578/Mum/2024 Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi, ITAT) / 165 ITD 27. 7.2. We find merit in the above said submissions of the assessee. In respect of expenditure disallowance to be made u/r 8D of I T Rules, we direct the AO to consider only those investments, which have yielded exempt income for the purpose of computing average value of investments and accordingly recompute the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of IT Rules. 7.3. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO has added the disallowance computed by him u/s. 14A of the Act for computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act. He submitted that the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal has held in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., (supra) that the addition to be made under clause (f) of explanation (1) to section 115JB(2) of the Act is required to be made without resorting to computation of contemplated u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the tax authorities on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with a direction to compute the addition to be made under clause (f) of explanation (1) to section 115JB(2) of the Act on the basis of annual accounts of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee filed for AY. 2017-18 is allowed. Other appeals are partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th August, 2024.