Revenue's Appeal Dismissed on Section 2(22)(e) & 14A Disallowance

The Revenue's appeal against the deletion of the addition under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that only the direct shareholding of the assessee should be considered, not including the subsidiary's shareholding. Additionally, the appeal regarding the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A was also dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order to restrict the disallowance to investments that yielded tax-free income. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 02.06.2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 10,20,00,000 made by the AO under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of expenses incurred in earning exempt income under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition under Section 2(22)(e):

The Revenue appealed against the order of CIT(A) which deleted the addition of Rs. 10,20,00,000 made by the AO under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had treated the loan received by the assessee from M/s. Mega Resources Ltd. as deemed dividend, based on the assessee's shareholding pattern. The AO concluded that the assessee, along with its subsidiary M/s. Hooghly Mills Projects Ltd., held more than 10% of the voting power in M/s. Mega Resources Ltd., thus attracting the provisions of Section 2(22)(e).

The CIT(A) disagreed with the AO's approach, stating that only the shares held directly by the assessee should be considered, which amounted to 1.7% of the voting power, not meeting the 10% threshold required under Section 2(22)(e). The CIT(A) emphasized that the AO had no basis to include the subsidiary's shareholding in the computation. The CIT(A) cited the case of Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd, where it was held that Section 2(22)(e) should be strictly interpreted and only the beneficial ownership of shares should be considered.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had incorrectly applied the first limb of Section 2(22)(e) and that the shareholding of the subsidiary should not be included. The Tribunal referenced the Special Bench decision in Bhaumik Colour Labs Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the term "shareholder" refers to a registered and beneficial shareholder. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that the assessee's direct shareholding of 1.7% did not attract the provisions of Section 2(22)(e).

2. Disallowance of Expenses under Section 14A:

The second issue concerned the disallowance of expenses incurred in earning exempt income under Section 14A, specifically under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The AO had disallowed Rs. 11,08,667, calculated as 0.5% of the average investments. The assessee contended that only Rs. 20,000 of other expenses were incurred in earning the dividend income and had already been reduced in its total income computation.

The CIT(A) directed the AO to consider only those investments that yielded tax-free dividend income for the calculation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), relying on the decision in REI Agro Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s direction, noting that this approach was consistent with the ITAT Kolkata Bench's decision in REI Agro Ltd., which had been approved by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground, confirming the CIT(A)'s order to restrict the disallowance to investments that yielded tax-free income during the year.

Conclusion:

The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed in its entirety. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues: the deletion of the addition under Section 2(22)(e) and the direction to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to investments that yielded tax-free income. The order was pronounced in court on 02.06.2017.

---