2019 (4) TMI 690 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Granted: Depreciation Reversed, Disallowance Restricted under Section 14A

Pearey Lall And Sons (EP) Pvt. Ltd, Formerly known as M/s. Pearey Lall And Sons (EP) Ltd Versus ACIT, Rohtak

Pearey Lall And Sons (EP) Pvt. Ltd, Formerly known as M/s. Pearey Lall And Sons (EP) Ltd Versus ACIT, Rohtak - TMI Issues:1. Addition of depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,96,10,677.2. Disallowance of Rs. 29,91,405 made by the Assessing Officer.3. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition of DepreciationThe appeal was filed against the order confirming the addition of depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,96,10,677. The assessee claimed depreciation under section 32 of the Income Tax Act and reduced the total taxable income by the depreciation written back of Rs. 20,38,4058. The Assessing Officer disallowed the second deduction as the assessee had already been granted deduction under section 32. The Tribunal noted that the depreciation difference arose due to a change in the method of providing depreciation, resulting in excess depreciation provided by the assessee. The adjustment was a book entry as per the ICAI guidelines and did not impact the taxable income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs. 1,96,10,677, allowing grounds 1 to 3 of the appeal.Issue 2: Disallowance by Assessing OfficerThe Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 29,91,405 under section 14A of the Act. The assessee invested in shares and mutual funds, and the Assessing Officer invoked Rule 8D for the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the disallowance on interest expenditure under Rule 8D was incorrect as the share capital and reserves of the assessee exceeded the investment amount significantly. Following the decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to Rs. 2,70,481, partly allowing grounds 4 to 6 of the appeal.Issue 3: Disallowance under Section 14AThe Tribunal concluded that disallowances on interest expenditure under Rule 8D were not justified due to the substantial share capital and reserves of the assessee compared to the investment amount. The disallowance was restricted to Rs. 2,70,481, in line with the assessee's offer during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance under section 14A to the agreed amount.In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, reversing the addition of depreciation and restricting the disallowance under section 14A to a lesser amount based on the circumstances of the case.