2015 (8) TMI 598 - AT - Income Tax

Appellant's Challenge on Disallowance Upheld with 10% Restriction

Indiabulls Projects Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- Circle 3 (2), Mumbai

The appellant challenged disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D for administrative expenses related to exempt income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's ... Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Once the facts and circumstances for the assessment year 2008-09 and assessment year under consideration are identical then the basis of disallowance can not be different. Accordingly we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the expenditure incurred for composite activity resulting in exempt income as well as taxable income. The above directions are given in peculiar facts and circumstance of the case and to maintain the rule of consistency, therefore, would not be applied as precedence. Treatment of interest income - income from other sources OR business income - Held that:- There is no dispute that the assessee’s business activity is real estate development inclusive of purchasing, selling, developing, constructing, hiring or otherwise dealing in real estate. Since the assessee has not started the development activity and was having its own fund, therefore, the assessee has invested some of the fund in mutual fund and other part in ICDs. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that the assessee is earning dividend income and appreciation of investment from the investment in the mutual fund and further certain part of the surplus fund is used for ICDs for earning the interest income. The investment in mutual fund and ICDs is not a regular business activity of the assessee. It is only a time gap utilization of the surplus fund till it is used for business of real estate development. Accordingly we do not find any error or illegality in the orders of authorities below in treating the interest income as income from other sources. Issues:1. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D2. Treatment of interest income as income from other sources instead of business incomeIssue 1: Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8DThe appellant challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The AO disallowed an amount under Rule 8D(2)(iii) for administrative and general expenses related to exempt income earned by the appellant. The appellant contended that Rule 8D should not apply as they had already made a disallowance based on personal and administrative expenses incurred. The appellant argued that no other expenses were incurred for earning the exempt income. However, the AO did not accept this argument and made the disallowance. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The appellant's representative argued that the investment was made in mutual funds where no additional expenditure was required. They also highlighted the AO's previous decision for the assessment year 2008-09, where a specific percentage of the dividend income was considered for disallowance. The Tribunal found that the AO did not investigate the specific expenses related to earning the exempt income. As the facts were similar to the previous assessment year, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the expenditure for consistency.Issue 2: Treatment of interest income as income from other sources instead of business incomeThe second issue pertained to the treatment of interest income earned by the appellant on inter-corporate deposits (ICDs). The appellant argued that the interest income should be considered as business income due to the systematic nature of the activity over the years. They pointed out that in the previous assessment year, the AO had accepted the interest income as business income. However, the AO in the current assessment year treated it as income from other sources. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's primary business was real estate development, not money lending. The investment in mutual funds and ICDs was seen as a temporary utilization of surplus funds until used for real estate activities. Therefore, the interest income was correctly treated as income from other sources. The appeal was partly allowed.This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment covers the issues involved, arguments presented, authorities' decisions, and the Tribunal's final ruling on each issue.