s.14A partially upheld; AO to reassess allowance; TP interest treated as capital infusion; s.43B, s.40(a)(ii) deleted; s.50 long-term status reexamined

ITAT MUMBAI upheld partial disallowance under s.14A but remitted the matter to the AO to reassess the sufficiency of the allowance for consistency with earlier Tribunal directions. Transfer pricing adjustment for interest on share-application money was deleted, treated as capital infusion not a loan. Corporate guarantee fee was accepted at 0.5%. Addition under s.43B for ESIC contributions was deleted as timely deposited. Disallowance of education cess and SHEC under s.40(a)(ii) was deleted. For capital gains on depreciable buildings, the Tribunal held s.50 does not obliterate long-term status; matter to be reexamined by AO in light of HC precedent.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Deletion of interest charged on share application money by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO).
3. Transfer pricing adjustment on commission on corporate guarantee.
4. Disallowance under Section 43B.
5. Disallowance of education cess and secondary and higher education cess under Section 40(a)(ii).
6. Tax rate applicable on capital gain on sale of buildings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The common issue in these appeals pertains to the direction of the learned CIT(A) to exclude assets that did not yield income for the computation of the average value of investment under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that it had already offered Rs. 25 lacs as disallowance under Section 14A for operating and administrative expenses related to earning exempt dividend income. The Assessing Officer had made a deduction at 0.5% of the administrative expenses under Rule 8D(ii). The Tribunal noted that in earlier years, the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to examine the sufficiency or correctness of the allowance made by the assessee. Following the precedent, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer with similar directions.

2. Deletion of interest charged on share application money by the TPO:
The Revenue's appeal challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order deleting interest charged on the share application money given by the assessee to the Associated Enterprise. The Tribunal noted that in earlier years, the ITAT had held that the share application money advanced to the Associated Enterprise, which had become a wholly-owned subsidiary, was to infuse further capital and meet working capital requirements. The Tribunal had accepted that the delay in allotment of shares was genuine, and the amount could not be treated as a loan transaction. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this order.

3. Transfer pricing adjustment on commission on corporate guarantee:
The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had extended a corporate guarantee without charging any fees and adopted a rate of 1.5% for the guarantee fees. For A.Y. 2013-14, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that no transfer pricing adjustment was required. For A.Y. 2014-15, the CIT(A) adopted a rate of 0.5%, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s view, directing that the guarantee fees should be 0.5%.

4. Disallowance under Section 43B:
The assessee had deposited employees' contribution to ESIC within the permissible grace period and before the due date of filing the return. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payments made after the due date under Section 36(1)(va). The CIT(A) deleted this addition, holding that the payments were covered under Section 43B as they were deposited within the stipulated time. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

5. Disallowance of education cess and secondary and higher education cess under Section 40(a)(ii):
The additional ground related to the disallowance of education cess and secondary and higher education cess under Section 40(a)(ii). The Tribunal admitted this ground and noted that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT. Following this decision, the Tribunal directed that the disallowance of education cess and secondary and higher education cess be deleted.

6. Tax rate applicable on capital gain on sale of buildings:
The additional ground for A.Y. 2013-14 pertained to the tax rate applicable on the capital gain on the sale of buildings. The assessee argued that the gain should be taxed at 21.63% under Section 112 instead of 32.45% as the buildings were held for more than three years. The Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. V.S. Dempo Company Ltd. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Manali Investment, which held that the deeming fiction of Section 50 is limited to the method of computation of the gain and does not obliterate the distinction between short-term and long-term capital gain. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reexamine the detailed facts and allow the claim as per the ratio of the above decisions.

Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed, with the Tribunal remanding certain issues to the Assessing Officer and upholding the CIT(A)'s orders on others. The Tribunal emphasized consistency and adherence to legal precedents in its judgment.

---