2012 (8) TMI 13 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal denies appeal on benefit denial, grants relief, and orders fresh examination.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the denial of benefit under Section 36(1)(viii) for certain receipts, upholding the exclusion of ... Long term financing - benefit of section 36(1)(viii) - inclusion in the profit and gains - a) Interest on Bank deposits, b) Interest on advances / deposits, c) Dividend on investments, d) Misc. receipts - held that:- following the decision in (2011 (11) TMI 380 - DELHI HIGH COURT) wherein at was observed that though the aforesaid items of income can be said to be “attributable” to the business of providing long-term finance, that was not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 36(1)(viii) and that the condition in the Section that the income should be “derived from” the business of providing long-term finance was not satisfied - Decided against the assessee. Deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) - held that:- When we compare the provisions of sec. 36(1)(viii) and sec. 80IB(1), we find that in both cases, deduction is allowable in respect of profits derived from relevant business. - Regarding service charges on SDF loans, admittedly, there is no finance given by the assessee as the entire financing in SDF Loans is by the Govt. and not by the assessee and the assessee is getting only some service charges for rendering certain services in that connection. Hence, this receipt can be said to be attributable to the business of proving long term finance but cannot be said to be derived from the business of providing long term finance. - Decided against the assessee. Alternative contention of the assessee that entire receipt on account of bank interest cannot be reduced from business profit for the purpose of calculating deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) allowable to assessee. - held that:- AO directed to work out the net profit which is liable to be disallowed as deduction u/s 36(i)(viii) after considering the assessee’s contention. In view of these facts, this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D - held that:- Sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 14A as well as r. 8D are prospective and not applicable retrospectively; however, even prior thereto, s. 14A required the AO to first reject the claim of the assessee with regard to the extent of such expenditure; for cogent reasons and then to determine the amount of such expenditure on the basis of a reasonable and acceptable method of apportionment - matter remanded back to AO. Issues Involved:1. Denial of benefit under section 36(1)(viii) for certain receipts.2. Granting relief of Rs. 11.72 crores under section 36(1)(viii) against Rs. 18.44 crores claimed by the assessee.3. Restriction of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D.Detailed Analysis:1. Denial of Benefit under Section 36(1)(viii) for Certain Receipts:The assessee argued that the receipts from interest on bank deposits, interest on advances/deposits, dividends on investments, and miscellaneous receipts are intrinsically connected to the business of long-term financing and should be included in the profits and gains of the business for computing the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). However, the CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's (AO) decision to exclude these receipts, and this decision was supported by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the assessee's own case. The High Court held that such receipts do not qualify as profits derived from the business of providing long-term finance. The tribunal, following the High Court's decision, dismissed the assessee's appeal, reiterating that the dividend income from redeemable preference shares, interest on short-term deposits, and service charges on SDF loans do not qualify for the deduction under section 36(1)(viii).2. Granting Relief of Rs. 11.72 Crores under Section 36(1)(viii):The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to grant relief of Rs. 11.72 crores against Rs. 18.44 crores claimed by the assessee, arguing that the disallowance was based on a similar methodology adopted in the assessee's own case during the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2004-05. The tribunal noted that in previous years, the ITAT had decided this issue against the assessee. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order but directed the AO to work out the net profit liable to be disallowed as deduction under section 36(1)(viii) after considering the assessee's contentions. This issue was restored to the AO for re-examination.3. Restriction of Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D to Rs. 55,080 out of Rs. 1,07,518 made by the AO. The CIT(A) had reduced the quantum of disallowance, which the revenue argued was mandatory in toto. The tribunal noted the applicability of Rule 8D for the Assessment Year 2008-09 and referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, which emphasized that the AO must record dissatisfaction with the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding expenditure. The tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination in light of the High Court's decision, directing the AO to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity.Conclusion:The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and partly allowed the revenue's appeal for statistical purposes. The AO was directed to re-examine the issues related to the net profit calculation for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) and the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, following the guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.