2016 (8) TMI 1496 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal partially allowed on interest expenses, other expenses disallowed. Deduction under Section 80-IC upheld.

Hycron Electronics Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Hycron Electronics Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity and jurisdiction of the CIT(A)'s order.2. Restriction of deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Eligibility of other income for deduction under Section 80-IC.4. Disallowance under Section 14-A read with Rule 8D.5. Levy of interest under Sections 234-A, 234-B, 234-C, and 234-D, and withdrawal of interest under Section 244-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity and Jurisdiction of the CIT(A)'s Order:The appellant contended that the order passed by the CIT(A), Shimla, dated 09.02.2016, was bad in law, illegal, without jurisdiction, and void. However, this ground was dismissed as it was general in nature.2. Restriction of Deduction Under Section 80-IC:The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) by restricting the claim of deduction under Section 80-IC from Rs. 4,30,68,526/- to Rs. 1,06,69,693/-, being 25% instead of 100% claimed by the appellant, on account of substantial expansion carried out in the industrial undertaking. The Tribunal referred to the coordinate bench's decision in M/s. Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO, which held that the deduction under Section 80-IC is limited to 100% for the first five years and 25% thereafter, even if substantial expansion is carried out. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the appellant's claim for a higher deduction.3. Eligibility of Other Income for Deduction Under Section 80-IC:The appellant's claim for deduction of other income amounting to Rs. 3,89,755/- under Section 80-IC was also restricted. The Tribunal again referred to the precedent set in the case of M/s. Hycron Electronics and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the appellant's ground.4. Disallowance Under Section 14-A Read with Rule 8D:The appellant contested the disallowance of Rs. 14,47,472/- under Section 14-A read with Rule 8D, without proving the nexus between the expenditure disallowed and the exempted dividend income amounting to Rs. 38,36,173/-. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had applied Rule 8D mandatorily without establishing the nexus between the interest-bearing funds and the exempt income. The Tribunal cited the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in CIT v. Abhisek Industries Limited, which held that the AO must record satisfaction based on credible evidence that interest-bearing funds were used to earn tax-free income. Since the AO did not establish this nexus, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 9,36,449/- on account of interest expenses but confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 5,11,023/- on account of other expenses.5. Levy of Interest Under Sections 234-A, 234-B, 234-C, and 234-D, and Withdrawal of Interest Under Section 244-A:This ground was dismissed as consequential in nature, following the decisions on the substantive grounds.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. The disallowance of Rs. 9,36,449/- on account of interest expenses under Section 14-A read with Rule 8D was deleted, while the disallowance of Rs. 5,11,023/- on account of other expenses was confirmed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the restriction of the deduction under Section 80-IC and the eligibility of other income for deduction under the same section. The grounds related to the validity and jurisdiction of the CIT(A)'s order and the levy of interest were dismissed.