2013 (1) TMI 720 - HC - Income Tax

HC upholds 2% disallowance limit under Section 14A on dividend income for AY 2008-09, affirming factual findings

CIT Versus ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT LTD

The HC upheld the Tribunal's decision limiting the disallowance under section 14A to 2% of dividend income for AY 2008-09. The court found no substantial ... Disallowance under section 14A - CIT(A) restricting the disallowance to 2% of dividend income - contention of the revenue that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 had not been applied properly in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 - Held that:- this is merely a question of fact and does not involve any question of law much less a substantial question of law, as the Tribunal held that the expenses which have been claimed by the assessee were not towards the exempted income. The disallowance, therefore, was rightly limited to a sum of ₹ 40,556/-. The question of interpreting Rule 8-D is not in dispute and the only dispute is with regard to facts which have been settled by the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue. Issues Involved:Interpretation of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in relation to disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09.Analysis:The High Court was presented with an appeal by the revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment year 2008-09. The primary issue under consideration was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had correctly restricted the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to 2% of the dividend income. The revenue contended that Rule 8D had not been applied appropriately for the said assessment year. The Tribunal extensively examined the matter and concluded that the disallowance was rightly limited to a specific amount based on the facts presented. The Tribunal found that the expenses claimed by the assessee were not related to the exempted income, justifying the restricted disallowance amount.The Tribunal's detailed analysis revealed that the interest paid on funds utilized for investments yielding exempted income was only &8377; 2,96,731. Additionally, the investments made in subsidiary companies were deemed to be for commercial expediency, as they were necessary to secure contracts from NHAI. These investments were not considered as expenses or interest incurred for earning exempted income, as the turnover from executing contracts with the SPVs formed from these investments was reflected in the assessee's profit and loss account. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision to limit the disallowance to &8377; 40,556, calculated at 2% of the dividend earned.The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing that the matter was primarily factual and did not involve any substantial question of law. The Court noted that the dispute centered on settled facts regarding expenses not being linked to exempted income, rendering the limited disallowance appropriate. The Court clarified that the interpretation of Rule 8D was not in contention, and the only issue was the factual determination made by the Tribunal, which was upheld. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the established facts and the correct application of the relevant legal provisions.