ITAT allows appeal on section 14A rule 8D addition after AO failed recording satisfaction before invoking provisions

ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal regarding addition under section 14A read with rule 8D. The tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction after verifying books of account regarding correctness of disallowance claimed by assessee before invoking rule 8D provisions as mandated under section 14A(2). Following Delhi HC precedent in Taikisha Engineering case, the tribunal reversed CIT(A)'s finding and directed AO to delete the disallowance. Regarding MAT addition, the tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion based on section 115JB interpretation, supporting the decision with Vireet Investment precedent.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.
2. Computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:

Background:
The assessee filed its return declaring nil income and earned exempt income of Rs. 58,09,619/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) applied Section 14A read with Rule 8D, computing the expenses related to exempt income at Rs. 13,23,81,481/-, and made an addition of Rs. 12,65,71,862/- after adjusting the assessee's own disallowance of Rs. 58,09,619/-. This addition was also included in the book profit for MAT computation.

CIT(A) Decision:
On appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 1,50,63,219/- and deleted the addition made for MAT computation. The CIT(A) held that "Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) is leviable u/s 115JB on 'book profit' as computed in terms of the Companies Act, 1956 and as increased/decreased by the amounts specified in Explanation 1 to Section 115JB. There is no provision to travel beyond Section 115JB."

ITAT Decision:
The ITAT found that the primary issue was the partial sustenance and deletion of the addition made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The ITAT noted that the AO did not record his satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's disallowance before applying Rule 8D, which is a prerequisite as per Section 14A(2). The ITAT cited the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd., which emphasized that the AO must record dissatisfaction with the correctness of the assessee's claim before determining the amount of expenditure under Rule 8D.

The ITAT also referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, which reiterated the need for the AO to be objectively satisfied with the assessee's claim before applying the prescribed method under Rule 8D.

Conclusion:
The ITAT concluded that, in the absence of recorded satisfaction by the AO, the disallowance under Section 14A applying Rule 8D is not sustainable. The ITAT reversed the CIT(A)'s partial sustenance of the addition and directed the AO to delete the disallowance.

2. Computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB:

Background:
The AO added the disallowance under Section 14A to the book profit for MAT computation. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that "disallowances made under various provisions of the Act in the regular assessment cannot be imported into section 115JB."

ITAT Decision:
The ITAT supported the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition to the book profit for MAT computation. The ITAT referenced the Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment (P) Ltd., which held that no addition to the book profit can be made based on disallowances made under regular provisions.

Conclusion:
The ITAT found no justification to discard the CIT(A)'s findings and upheld the deletion of the addition to the book profit for MAT computation.

Final Judgment:
- The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
- The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2017.

---