TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue's Appeal Dismissed on Interest Disallowance; Assessee's Challenge Rejected; Section 115JB Remanded for Assessment</h1> <h3>DCIT, Circle – 4 (1) (2), Ahmedabad Versus Torrent Power Grid Ltd.</h3> DCIT, Circle – 4 (1) (2), Ahmedabad Versus Torrent Power Grid Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Deletion of disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(ii).2. Confirmation of disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(iii).3. Addition to book profit under Section 115JB on account of disallowance under Section 14A.4. Levy of interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Disallowance of Interest Expenditure (Section 14A read with Rule 8D(ii)):The Revenue challenged the deletion of Rs. 39,29,249/- disallowed by the AO under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(ii). The assessee argued that its own funds exceeded the investments, negating the need for disallowance. The CIT(A) agreed, noting that the interest was paid on term loans for project purposes, not for earning exempt income. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing the Gujarat High Court's ruling in UTI Bank Ltd., where no disallowance is warranted if interest-free funds exceed investments.2. Confirmation of Disallowance of Administrative Expenses (Section 14A read with Rule 8D(iii)):The assessee contested the confirmation of Rs. 8,00,154/- disallowed for administrative expenses. The AO argued that strategic decisions by top management involved expenses. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, referencing a previous year's decision. The Tribunal supported this, noting that the assessee's financial statements showed active management of investments, implying incurred administrative expenses. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's reliance on Sintex Industries Ltd. and Gulshan Investment Co. Ltd., finding them inapplicable.3. Addition to Book Profit under Section 115JB:The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 47,29,403/- to book profit under Section 115JB, arguing that disallowances under Section 14A should not affect MAT calculations. The CIT(A) dismissed this, citing various precedents that Section 14A disallowances should be added back under Section 115JB. However, the Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., which held that disallowances under Section 14A should not affect MAT calculations. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to determine disallowances independently under clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Section 115JB, following the Calcutta High Court's guidance in CIT vs. Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd.4. Levy of Interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D:The assessee also raised issues regarding the levy of interest under Sections 234B, 234C, and 234D, which the CIT(A) did not entertain, considering the interest mandatory. The Tribunal did not provide a separate detailed analysis for this issue in the provided text.Conclusion:- The Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of interest expenditure disallowance was dismissed.- The assessee's appeal regarding administrative expenses disallowance was dismissed.- The issue of addition to book profit under Section 115JB was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.- The Tribunal's order was pronounced in open court on 12/07/2018.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
