Section 14A computation must reflect interest-free funds and only exempt-income investments; other prior-year reliefs were sustained.

For section 14A computation, where interest-free own funds are sufficient, a presumption applies that investments are made from such funds, and under Rule 8D(2)(ii) only investments yielding exempt income during the year are to be considered; the disallowance was therefore restored for recomputation on that basis. The provision for leave encashment was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The penalty expenditure claim was not pressed. The Revenue's objections to inclusion of other income in section 10B deduction, as well as the allowance of additional depreciation and mark-to-market losses, were rejected because those matters had already been decided in the assessee's favour in earlier years.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance under section 14A was to be recomputed by applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) after considering own funds and only those investments which yielded exempt income; (ii) whether the provision for leave encashment required fresh adjudication; (iii) whether the penalty amount was allowable as business expenditure; (iv) whether other income was to be included while computing deduction under section 10B; (v) whether the claim for additional depreciation and the provision for mark-to-market losses were rightly allowed.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance under section 14A was to be recomputed by applying Rule 8D(2)(ii) after considering own funds and only those investments which yielded exempt income.

Analysis: The assessee's own case for an earlier year had already applied the principle that where interest-free funds are sufficient, a presumption arises that investments are made out of such funds. The Tribunal also relied on the principle that, for computing average investment for the purpose of Rule 8D(2)(ii), only those investments which actually yielded exempt income during the year are to be considered.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation in accordance with the stated principles, and the ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue (ii): Whether the provision for leave encashment required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The same issue had been remitted in the assessee's own case for an earlier year. Following that course, the matter was sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty amount was allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: The ground was not pressed before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The ground was dismissed as not pressed.

Issue (iv): Whether other income was to be included while computing deduction under section 10B, and whether the claim for additional depreciation and the provision for mark-to-market losses were rightly allowed.

Analysis: These issues had already been decided in the assessee's favour in earlier assessment years, and the appellate order had followed the binding jurisdictional and co-ordinate bench decisions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the relief granted by the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenges on these issues were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained remand and statistical relief on the section 14A issue and remand on leave encashment, while the Revenue's objections to deduction under section 10B, additional depreciation, and mark-to-market losses were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 14A computation, where own funds are sufficient, a presumption arises that investments are from interest-free funds, and for applying Rule 8D(2)(ii), only investments yielding exempt income during the year are to be considered.

---