2010 (10) TMI 1075 - AT - Income Tax

Investment in shares deemed business activity, interest disallowance remitted for reassessment.

I-Ven Interactive Ltd., Versus Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

The Tribunal held that the assessee's investment in shares constituted a business activity. The disallowance of interest claim under section 14A was ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the assessee carried on any business activity.2. Disallowance of interest claim by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act.3. Enhancement of disallowance amount u/s 37(1) of the Act.4. Disallowance of legal and professional fees expenses.5. Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses.6. Disallowance of general and administrative expenses.Summary:Issue 1: Business ActivityThe primary issue was whether the assessee carried on any business activity. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not carry on any business activity. However, the assessee contended that it was engaged in the business of investment in shares and securities, including strategic investments, and had procured a strategic controlling stake in Tata Infomedia Ltd. The Tribunal held that the nature of the assessee's activity of investment in shares is a business activity, referencing the statutory definition of 'business' u/s 2(13) and relevant case law, including CIT Vs. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. 108 ITR 895 (Mad) affirmed by the Supreme Court in 226 ITR (SC).Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest Claim u/s 14AThe AO disallowed interest paid on borrowed capital, invoking section 14A, as the borrowed capital was used for investing in securities to earn dividend income, which is not part of total income. The CIT(A) enhanced this disallowance applying Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine this issue in light of the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Godrej Boyce & Co. Ltd., 43 DTR 177.Issue 3: Enhancement of Disallowance u/s 37(1)Ground No. 1 involved the enhancement of disallowance amount u/s 37(1) of the Act, which was allowed by the AO as general and administrative expenses. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee's investment activity is a business activity implies that such expenses are allowable in accordance with law.Issue 4: Disallowance of Legal and Professional FeesThe AO disallowed legal and professional charges of Rs. 31,73,200/- on the ground that the expenditure was not incurred for business purposes. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the AO to examine the allowability of expenditure, considering the finding that the assessee's activity is a business activity.Issue 5: Disallowance of Miscellaneous ExpensesThe AO disallowed miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 3,50,424/- on similar grounds. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine these expenses in light of the finding that the assessee's investment activity is a business activity.Issue 6: Disallowance of General and Administrative ExpensesGround No. 8 involved the disallowance of general and administrative expenses. The Tribunal remitted this issue back to the AO to decide afresh, considering the finding that the assessee's activity is a business activity.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to re-examine the issues afresh, providing the assessee an opportunity of hearing, and decide in accordance with the law. The appeal was pronounced in the open court on the 27th day of 2010.