DCIT CC 3(1) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD WIND FARMS (KRISHNA) LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6832/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2017AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that strategic investments in a subsidiary do not warrant disallowance under Section 14A when no dividend income is earned. The Tribunal followed previous coordinate bench rulings.

What were the facts?

The assessee made significant investments in shares of its subsidiary company. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of expenses under Section 14A, applying Rule 8D, despite the assessee not receiving any dividend income. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, considering the investment strategic.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses related to strategic investments in a subsidiary, where no dividend income is earned, are disallowable under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Ghosh
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Jha
Hearing: 4.5.2017Pronounced: 4.5.2017

The revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26-08-2016 passed by Ld CIT(A)-51, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the AO u/s 14A of the Act.

2.

The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of wind energy. Consequent to the search operation conducted in the hands of the assessee, the present assessment was completed by the AO u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The AO noticed that the assessee has made investments in shares to the tune of Rs.352 crores and has disallowed a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs only u/s 14A of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the assessee did not receive any dividend income in the instant year. The AO applied the provisions of Rule 8D of I T Rules and accordingly computed the disallowance. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has made entire investment in the equity shares of its subsidiary company, which is strategic in nature. Accordingly, by following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Garware Wall Ropes (ITA No.5408/M/2012 and J.M. Financials Ltd (ITA No.4521/M/2012), the Ld CIT(A) expressed the view that the strategic investments have to be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance u/r 8D. In that case, there was no requirement of making any disallowance and accordingly the Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. Revenue is aggrieved by that decision.

3.

I have heard the parties and perused the record. The fact remains that the assessee did not receive any dividend during the year under consideration. I also notice that the entire investment has been made in the subsidiary company named Vayu (India) Power Corporation P Ltd and hence there is commercial expediency in making investment. Under these set of facts, I am of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made u/s 14A of the Act by following the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal. Accordingly I uphold his order.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 4.5.2017.

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →