Tribunal upholds Section 80IA deduction, limits disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) to Rs. 9,200.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upheld the deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii), confirmed the Section 80IA deduction, and limited the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) to Rs. 9,200/-. The decision was in favor of the assessee, aligning with precedents and was pronounced on February 7, 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii) read with Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Deduction under Section 80IA and interpretation of "initial assessment year."
3. Disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) for strategic investments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act:
The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 2,94,750/- and claimed it as exempt. The AO computed a disallowance of Rs. 22,40,269/- under Rule 8D, which included Rs. 20,16,757/- as interest under Rule 8D2(ii). The Ld.CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, reasoning that the interest paid was for the sugar trading business or loans on Plant & Machinery, not for investments that earned exempt income. Additionally, the assessee had sufficient own funds exceeding the investments. This decision was supported by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in HDFC Bank v. DCIT and CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)’s decision, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii).

2. Deduction under Section 80IA and Interpretation of "Initial Assessment Year":
The Revenue challenged the Ld.CIT(A)'s decision allowing the assessee's claim under Section 80IA based on decisions from Karnataka High Court and Mumbai Tribunal. The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the claim, noting that the assessee opted for A.Y. 2010-11 as the initial assessment year, with no carried forward losses to set off against the windmill income. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Hercules Hoist Ltd., which held that losses and depreciation of eligible business already set off against other income in earlier years should not be deducted again for determining the quantum of deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal affirmed the Ld.CIT(A)'s order, rejecting the Revenue's grounds.

3. Disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) for Strategic Investments:
The assessee filed a Cross Objection regarding the sustained disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii). The assessee argued that all investments were strategic in group/associate companies, and no expenses were incurred for these investments in the current year. The Tribunal noted that in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2013-14, the disallowance was limited to 0.5% of the dividend earning investment, which was Rs. 9,200/-. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's computation and directed the AO to delete the disallowance exceeding Rs. 9,200/- under Rule 8D2(iii), aligning with the Special Bench decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investments Private Limited.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's Cross Objection, confirming the deletion of disallowance under Rule 8D2(ii), upholding the Section 80IA deduction, and limiting the disallowance under Rule 8D2(iii) to Rs. 9,200/-. The order was pronounced on February 7, 2018.

---