Depreciation on assets leased to third parties upheld; section 14A disallowance deleted; 115JB book profit remanded, Rule 8D Rule 46A

ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal: depreciation claimed on assets leased to third parties was upheld because lessee certificates produced before CIT(A) were not challenged and CIT(A) should have admitted or verified them under Rule 46A if in doubt. The section 14A disallowance under Rule 8D was deleted as no expenses for earning exempt dividends were shown and the AO failed to examine the taxpayer's self-disallowance. For computation of book profit under section 115JB, the matter was remanded to the AO to determine book profit without applying Rule 8D, consistent with prior ITAT findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the direction to verify lessee's claim of depreciation on leased assets.
2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Application of Rule 8D in computing book profits under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Direction to Verify Lessee's Claim of Depreciation on Leased Assets:
The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s direction to verify whether the lessee claimed depreciation on leased assets. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the depreciation claim, considering the leasing business as a hire purchase-cum-finance business. The CIT(A) allowed the depreciation claim subject to verification by the AO that lessees had not claimed depreciation, citing precedents including the Supreme Court decisions in CIT Vs Shann Finance Private Limited and ICDS Ltd Vs CIT. The Tribunal found that the assessee had already produced certificates from lessees confirming no depreciation claims, and no contrary evidence was presented by the Department. Therefore, the Tribunal held there was no justification for the CIT(A)'s direction for further verification and allowed the assessee's ground.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee had earned exempt dividend income and made a suo motu disallowance of Rs. 10 lakh. However, the AO invoked Rule 8D and determined a higher disallowance of Rs. 5,14,64,963/-, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the AO had not recorded proper satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's disallowance, a mandatory requirement under Section 14A(2). Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investments Ltd vs CIT, the Tribunal emphasized that the AO must record dissatisfaction with the assessee's apportionment before applying Rule 8D. As the AO failed to do so, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 14A.

3. Application of Rule 8D in Computing Book Profits Under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's adjustment of book profits under Section 115JB by adding back the disallowance made under Section 14A. The Tribunal referred to its decision in the assessee's case for earlier years, where it was held that disallowance under Section 14A should not be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB, following the Special Bench decision in ACIT vs Vireet Investments Pvt Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to decide without resorting to Rule 8D for computing book profits, thus allowing the ground for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, deleting the disallowance under Section 14A and restoring the issue of book profit computation under Section 115JB to the AO for re-evaluation without applying Rule 8D. The direction for verification of lessee's depreciation claim was struck down. The order was pronounced on 8th October 2020.

---