TAFE MOTORS AND TRACTORS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that income forming part of the total income cannot be disallowed. It further ruled that if a loan taken for a specific project is not repaid and profits are invested in assets yielding exempt income, it implies the assessee has not used its own funds for such investments, making Rule 8D(2) applicable.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed that investments yielding taxable income should be excluded from disallowance under Section 14A. The assessee also argued that a term loan taken for a specific project and not repaid could not be considered for disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether investments yielding taxable income are to be excluded from disallowance under Section 14A, and whether a loan taken for a specific project, if not repaid and profits invested in exempt income yielding assets, can lead to disallowance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
All the three appeals of the assessee are directed against the respective order of CIT(A) -11 for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13. Since common issue arises for consideration in all the appeals, we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.
Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the only issue raised for consideration is that computation of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the rules. Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that some of the investment made by the assessee resulted in taxable income. What was to be disallowed is the income which does not form part of the total income of the assessee. Since the income which forms part of the total income cannot be considered for disallowance under Section 14A, the same shall be excluded while computing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2). This fact was not considered by both the authorities below. Moreover, the term loan was availed by the assessee in the earlier assessment year which was used for the purpose for which the loan was obtained. Therefore, the borrowed funds were not used for earning exempted income.
According to the learned counsel for the assessee, the loan was specifically sanctioned for a specific project and the same cannot be diverted for making investment. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the loan borrowed by the assessee for a specific project cannot be considered as disallowance under Section 14A. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the entire investment was made from the profit of the assessee.
Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance.
On the contrary, Shri A.V.Sreekanth, the learned Department Representative submitted that there cannot be any disallowance with regard to the income which forms part of the total income. The disallowance has to be determined under Rule 8D only in respect of income which does not form part of the total income of the assessee. In this case, the assessee estimated the disallowance without following Rule 8D. Therefore, at the initial assessment, the AO disallowed the claim by assuming the expenditure at 5% of the income which does not form part of the total income. Subsequently, the assessment was re-opened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and the AO computed the disallowance under Rule 8D (2) of the Income Tax Rules. Since disallowance is computed strictly as per Rule 8D (2) after reopening the CIT(A) as rightly confirmed the order of the AO.
We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. In the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel for the assessee raised an issue with regard to re-opening of the assessment. However, no argument was advanced during the course of hearing. Therefore, the issue raised by the assessee with regard to re-opening of the assessment is dismissed.
6. Now coming to the merit of the appeal, the first claim of the assessee was that the investment which resulted taxable income cannot be considered for disallowance under Rule 8D. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the income which forms part of the total income cannot be considered for any disallowance at all. What is to be disallowed under Rule 8D is an expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning the income which does not form part of the total income. In the case before us, the AO has strictly applied the provisions of Rule 8D (2). In fact, the AO has taken the direct expenditure with regard to the first limb of Rule 8D (2)(i) at Rs.4,00,000/-. This was deleted by CIT (A) on the ground that there was no direct expenditure incurred by the assessee. The CIT (A) has also found that the AO observed that the assessee made disallowance under Section 14A at 5% of the income without following Rule 8D. In fact, the CIT (A) computed the disallowance by applying the second and third limbs of Rule 8D(2). The main claim of the assessee is that the loan was borrowed for a specific project. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance in second limb of Rule 8D (2). This Tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. When the assessee borrowed loan in the earlier assessment years for a specific project and without repaying the same, invest the profit in the shares and bonds which resulted exempted income, it cannot be said that the assessee has invested its own funds. Had the assessee repaid the loan from the profit earned in the earlier assessment years or during the current assessment years, the liability for payment of interest would be reduced considerably. However, without repaying the loan borrowed for the so called specific project, the assessee choose to invest in the shares and bonds which resulted in exempted income. Therefore, the assessee has incurred expenditure which cannot be contributed to any particular income. In other words, the second limb of Rule 8D(2) is clearly applicable in such circumstances. Moreover, even assuming for arguing sake, the assessee has invested its own funds, the third limb of Rule 8D(2) would come into operation. Therefore, 0.5% of the average investment which resulted exempted income has to be considered for disallowance. The order of CIT(A) clearly shows that the CIT(A) has applied Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rule 8D(2)(iii). Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed.
In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2016 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 →- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
