2013 (10) TMI 835 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeals, partly allows assessee's C.Os emphasizing business expediency, nature of investments, Section 14A disallowances.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. TML Industries Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals related to disallowances and partly allowed the assessee's C.Os. The judgments emphasized proving business ... Disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act – Held that:- The dividend in case of Nibbana Ltd. is taxable being a foreign company, whereas investments in Pragati Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Alkapuri Arcade Premises Onus Co-op. Society Ltd. were made for business purposes as the assessee purchased the majority shares of the company to control the management, in case of Alkapuri Arcade Premises Onus Co-op. Society Ltd. the investment is only Rs. 1500/- of 30 shares and in case of Pragati Sahakari Bank Ltd. Rs.50,000/-. The investment in shares of Nibbana Ltd. is Rs.3.02 crore which were purchased by the assessee company in the year 1997-98 from ICD loan, which was re-paid in A.Y. 03-04 from own funds, which has been accepted by the Department in preceding years – Expenses allowed – Section 14A, not applicable – Decided against the Revenue. Issues Involved:- Disallowance of interest on advance paid to a subsidiary company.- Exclusion of investments made in specific companies for computation under Rule 8D.- Disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of investment in certain companies.Analysis:1. Disallowance of Interest on Advance Paid to Subsidiary Company:- The issue revolved around the disallowance of interest on an advance paid to a subsidiary company. The AO disallowed the interest amount as the assessee failed to prove the business expediency of the advance. The CIT(A) later deleted the addition, citing the commercial expediency of the transaction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, considering the business connection between the parties and the financial position of the assessee.2. Exclusion of Investments for Rule 8D Computation:- The AO disallowed a certain amount under Rule 14A for investments made in specific companies. The CIT(A) directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance and exclude certain investments from the computation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, considering the nature of investments, business purposes, and past repayment history of the borrowings.3. Disallowance under Section 14A for Specific Investments:- The AO made disallowances under Section 14A for investments in certain companies, which was challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) directed the AO to exclude specific investments for the computation under Rule 8D. The Tribunal found the issue required further consideration for justice and set aside the ground of appeal to the CIT(A).In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals related to disallowances and partly allowed the assessee's C.Os. The judgments highlighted the importance of proving business expediency, considering the nature of investments, and ensuring proper computation under relevant rules for disallowances under Section 14A. The decisions were based on detailed discussions and assessments of the facts and legal provisions involved in each issue.