2021 (4) TMI 371 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules on disallowance calculation under Income Tax Act, affirming exclusion of non-exempt income investments

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax – 1 (1) (1), Mumbai Versus Aegis Logistics Limited

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s decision to exclude investments not yielding exempt income in calculating ... Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - CIT (A) directing to exclude investment which was not yielded exempt income - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (5) TMI 1942 - ITAT MUMBAI] issue decided in favour of assessee adopting same methodology for computing the disallowance. The Ld.DR could not controvert the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) with new cogent evidence or information. Accordingly, we find that Ld.CIT (A) has relied on the judicial decisions and took a reasoned view. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the revenue. Issues:1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to investments not yielding exempt income.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Mumbai, concerning disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) calculated a disallowance of Rs. 2,61,73,130 after granting set off of suo moto disallowance by the assessee of Rs. 19,32,070. The CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. The revenue, aggrieved by this order, filed an appeal with the Tribunal, challenging the direction to exclude investments not yielding exempt income while calculating disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii).The crux of the issue revolved around the interpretation of disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii). The revenue contended that the CIT (A) erred in directing the AO to exclude investments not yielding exempt income for the calculation of the average value of investments. Conversely, the assessee's representative relied on judicial decisions, particularly referencing a previous year's case where the Tribunal had observed that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for computing the disallowance. The Tribunal noted the earlier Tribunal decision's relevance and upheld the CIT (A)'s order, emphasizing that investments yielding exempt income should be the basis for calculating the disallowance.In a detailed analysis, the CIT (A) considered the submissions and past decisions. The CIT (A) observed that investments in foreign subsidiaries and debentures should be excluded from the average investment computation as they yield taxable income. Additionally, only investments generating exempt income during the year should be considered for determining the average value of investments for disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the CIT (A) had relied on judicial decisions and took a reasoned view. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT (A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT (A)'s decision regarding the exclusion of investments not yielding exempt income in the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal upheld the principle that only investments generating exempt income should be considered for computing the disallowance, in line with past judicial decisions and legal provisions.