Tribunal allows appeals, reduces disallowances under Section 14A, remits tax credit issues for further review.

Excel Infotech Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi.

Excel Infotech Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Grant of credit for tax payments.
3. Grant of MAT credit under Section 115JA.
4. Charging of interest under Section 234A.

Detailed Analysis:

Assessment Year 2009-10

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A

The first issue concerns the confirmation of a disallowance of Rs. 89,19,576 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The AO noted that the assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs. 7,77,882 but did not offer any disallowance under Section 14A. Applying Rule 8D, the AO computed the disallowance at Rs. 89,19,576, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

The assessee argued that no incriminating material was found during the search to justify the disallowance under Section 14A, relying on the judgment in Kabul Chawla vs. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del). The Tribunal found that the assessment for the year 2009-10 was completed and no incriminating material was found during the search. Consequently, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

Issue 2: Grant of Credit for Tax Payments

The assessee raised additional grounds regarding the grant of credit of Rs. 1,87,538 against Rs. 18,65,739, the non-grant of MAT credit of Rs. 1,49,377 under Section 115JA, and the charging of interest under Section 234A. The CIT(A) did not address these additional grounds. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for consideration and decision on these additional grounds.

Assessment Year 2010-11

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A

The AO noticed that the assessee earned exempt income of Rs. 7,72,918 but did not offer any disallowance under Section 14A. The AO made a disallowance of Rs. 58,90,988, which was reduced by the CIT(A) to Rs. 33,12,360. The assessee contended that the AO did not record any satisfaction before making the disallowance, relying on the judgment in HT Media vs. Pr. CIT (2017) 399 ITR 576 (Del).

The Tribunal found that the AO recorded proper satisfaction as required under Section 14A. However, following the precedents set by the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 33 (Del) and CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. (2014) 90CCH 081-Del-HC, the Tribunal limited the disallowance to the extent of the exempt income of Rs. 7,72,918.

Issue 2: Grant of Credit for Tax Payments

The assessee raised an additional ground regarding the grant of credit of Rs. 20,24,335 against Rs. 54,20,331. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide this ground on merits.

Assessment Year 2011-12

Issue: Disallowance under Section 14A

The only issue in this appeal was the confirmation of disallowance under Section 14A to the tune of Rs. 37,02,740. The facts and circumstances were similar to those of the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal rejected the assessee’s contention of non-recording of satisfaction by the AO but reduced the disallowance to Rs. 2,48,500, being the amount of exempt income under Section 10(34) of the Act.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals partly for all three assessment years. The disallowances under Section 14A were either deleted or reduced to the extent of the exempt income. The additional grounds regarding the grant of credit for tax payments and MAT credit were remitted back to the CIT(A) for consideration and decision on merits.