TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Disallowance of Interest on Exempt Dividend Income, Remands Foreign Investment Interest Case.</h1> <h3>Birla Group Holdings Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2 (1), Mumbai</h3> Birla Group Holdings Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 2 (1), Mumbai - [2007] 13 SOT 642 (MUM.) Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of interest paid under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance of administrative and other expenses under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Interest Paid Under Section 14A:The primary issue is the disallowance of Rs. 4,12,57,221/- as interest paid by the assessee-company, which the CIT(A) upheld. The assessee argued that section 14A should not apply to dividend income because, although the dividend is exempt in the hands of the shareholder, it is taxed under section 115-O at the company level. The assessee also contended that interest on borrowings for investments in foreign companies and growth funds should not be disallowed as these do not yield exempt income.The Tribunal noted that the original return filed by the assessee disallowed the net interest, but the revised return claimed it as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii). The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the interest under section 14A, stating that the borrowed funds were used for investments yielding exempt dividend income. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 14A, which disallows expenditure related to exempt income, and noted that section 14A was introduced with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962. It considered precedents, including the Ahmedabad Bench's decision in Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. ITO, which held that expenses related to exempt income cannot be deducted.The Tribunal concluded that the interest on borrowings for investments yielding exempt dividend income is not allowable under section 14A. However, it remanded the case to the AO to quantify the interest attributable to investments in foreign companies, which are not exempt under section 10(33), and to consider this interest under section 57(iii).2. Disallowance of Administrative and Other Expenses Under Section 14A:The second issue concerns the disallowance of Rs. 60,220/- as administrative and other expenses. The AO made an ad hoc disallowance of 10% of the total administrative expenses, attributing them to earning exempt dividend income. The CIT(A) reduced this disallowance to Rs. 60,220/-.The Tribunal reviewed the records and found no direct link between the administrative expenses and the earning of dividend income. It noted that ad hoc disallowances without direct correlation to earning exempt income lack merit. The Tribunal directed the AO not to disallow any administrative expenses towards earning dividend income, thus overturning the disallowance.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest related to exempt dividend income but remanded the case for quantifying interest on investments in foreign companies. It overturned the ad hoc disallowance of administrative expenses, directing no disallowance for these expenses.
TaxTMI 