Tribunal directs AO to compute disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) using net interest & reconsider section 14A disallowance.

The Tribunal directed the AO to compute disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) using net interest and to recompute disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D by applying the theory of apportionment of expenditure and considering only shares yielding dividend income. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules using gross interest versus net interest.
2. Inclusion of the average value of stock-in-trade in determining disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Determination of Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) Using Gross Interest versus Net Interest
The primary contention of the assessee was that the Assessing Officer (AO) incorrectly used the gross interest amount of Rs. 3,46,48,556/- instead of the net interest amount of Rs. 83,50,170/- (gross interest minus interest received) for computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii). The assessee argued that only net interest should be considered for this computation.

Legal Precedents and Tribunal's Decision:
- The Tribunal referenced multiple precedents, including the case of DCIT vs. Universal Industrial Fund Ltd., where it was held that net interest should be used for disallowance computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii).
- Similarly, in M/s Suhami Power & Finance Corporation vs. ACIT, it was confirmed that net interest should be considered.
- The Tribunal concluded that the AO should compute the disallowance using net interest (interest received minus interest paid). The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) accordingly.

Issue 2: Inclusion of Average Value of Stock-in-Trade in Determining Disallowance under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D
The assessee contended that the average value of stock-in-trade should not be included in the calculation of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, as the shares were held as stock-in-trade and not as investments.

Legal Precedents and Tribunal's Decision:
- The Tribunal did not accept the assessee's argument, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, which held that even shares held as stock-in-trade would be subject to disallowance under section 14A based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure.
- The Tribunal also considered the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in REI Agro Ltd. vs. DCIT, which stated that only investments yielding dividend income during the previous year should be considered for the average value of investments under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii).
- The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D by applying the theory of apportionment of expenditure and considering only those shares which yielded dividend income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to:
1. Compute disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) using net interest (interest received minus interest paid).
2. Recompute disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D for shares held as stock-in-trade by applying the theory of apportionment of expenditure and considering only those shares which yielded dividend income.

---