Tribunal affirms deletion of disallowance under section 14A for assessment years, emphasizing lack of exempt income

DCIT 5 (1) (1), MUMBAI Versus BGH EXIM LTD

DCIT 5 (1) (1), MUMBAI Versus BGH EXIM LTD - TMI Issues:
Disallowance made by AO u/s-14A deleted by CIT(A) for assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11, and 2011-12.

Analysis:
1. The appeals filed by the Revenue concern disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 14A, which was subsequently deleted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the same assessee across different assessment years. The primary issue in all three appeals revolves around the disallowance under section 14A.

2. In the assessment year 2008-09, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the amount of exempt income of dividend received during that year. The CIT(A) observed that the AO did not establish a nexus between the expenditure incurred and the exempt income, leading to the disallowance being restricted to the actual amount of exempt income received.

3. For the assessment year 2010-11, the CIT(A) deleted the entire disallowance made by the AO as no exempt income had been received by the assessee during that year. The CIT(A) noted the arguments presented by the appellant regarding the non-claim of exempt income and cited relevant case laws supporting the position that no disallowance should be made when no exempt income is earned.

4. Similarly, for the assessment year 2011-12, the CIT(A) fully deleted the disallowance as no exempt income was received during that year. The CIT(A) reiterated the same reasoning as in the assessment year 2010-11.

5. During the hearing, the counsel for the assessee referenced various judgments supporting the position that disallowance under section 14A should be restricted to exempt income only. The counsel argued that no disallowance can be made in the absence of any exempted income, and the balance-sheet reflected no dividend income credited by the assessee in the profit and loss account.

6. The Revenue contended that the assessee held Preference Shares as part of its investments, suggesting that income had accrued due to the fixed rate of dividend associated with such shares. However, the counsel for the assessee refuted this claim by demonstrating that no dividend income had been declared by the relevant companies on the Preference Shares held by the assessee.

7. Upon reviewing the orders of the AO and the CIT(A), it was noted that the CIT(A) had made a factual finding that no exempt income was received by the assessee in the relevant assessment years. The CIT(A) followed established legal principles and case laws to support the deletion of disallowance under section 14A when no exempt income was earned.

8. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) for all three assessment years, dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on the absence of exempt income and the legal precedents cited by the assessee, emphasizing that no interference was warranted in the CIT(A)'s orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment affirms the deletion of disallowance under section 14A by the CIT(A) for the assessment years in question, highlighting the importance of establishing a direct link between expenditure and exempt income for such disallowances.