Tribunal allows appeal, deletes disallowances under Income Tax Act, no interest disallowance or tax deduction

The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of disallowances under sections 14A and 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. It ruled no interest disallowance under section 14A and no tax deduction under section 40(a)(i) for payments made to a foreign entity for advisory services. The tribunal also deleted an ad-hoc disallowance of business promotion expenses. The appeal on the disallowance of service tax was dismissed as not pressed. The order was pronounced on December 21, 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Disallowance of business promotion expenses.
4. Disallowance of service tax (not pressed).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee appealed against the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D by the Assessing Officer (AO), which was sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The AO disallowed Rs. 23,10,532, comprising Rs. 7,85,532 as interest and Rs. 15,25,000 as administrative expenses. The assessee's counsel argued that the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments and cited the case of CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd [366 ITR 505] to support that no interest disallowance was warranted. For administrative expenses, the counsel suggested limiting the disallowance to the exempt income earned, relying on the judgment in Joint Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and the ITAT decision in Pest Control India Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal examined the balance sheet and found sufficient own funds, thus ruling no interest disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). For administrative expenses, the tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the exempt income of Rs. 7,32,781 and delete the balance disallowance.

2. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act:
The AO disallowed Rs. 25,97,275 paid to Phora Capital Advisors in France for professional services, citing non-deduction of tax at source under section 195. The CIT(A) agreed but reduced the disallowance to Rs. 13,04,364, considering a recovery from Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. The assessee argued that the services were not technical and cited the DTAA between India and France, which includes a "make available" clause, implying that technical knowledge must be transferred to the recipient. The tribunal referred to judgments from the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. ISRO Satellite Centre and the Delhi High Court in Steria (India) Ltd. v. CIT, which supported the assessee's view. The tribunal concluded that the advisory services did not "make available" technical knowledge, thus no tax was deductible, and directed the AO to delete the disallowance.

3. Disallowance of business promotion expenses:
The AO disallowed 10% of the business promotion expenses on an ad-hoc basis due to lack of supporting evidence, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel pointed out that similar disallowances for previous years were deleted by the tribunal. The tribunal reviewed the details and previous tribunal orders, concluding that ad-hoc disallowances without rejecting the books of account were unjustifiable. The tribunal directed the AO to delete the ad-hoc disallowance.

4. Disallowance of service tax (not pressed):
The assessee did not press this ground, and the tribunal dismissed it as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing specific deletions and adjustments as per the detailed analysis above. The order was pronounced in the open court on December 21, 2018.

---