2022 (3) TMI 18 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal directs accurate disallowance computation under section 14A to include only dividend-yielding investments.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D by considering only investments that yielded ... Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - As argued assessee has not received dividend on certain shares and, therefore, no disallowance could be made u/s 14A in those shares on which no dividend has been received - HELD THAT:- It has been held in various decisions that for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, the investments which has yielded dividend income are only to be considered. Since it is the submission of the ld. Counsel that it has received dividend income only in respect of six investments, the average investment of which comes to ₹ 16,55,49,405/-, therefore, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to recompute the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D by considering the investment which has actually yielded dividend income and exclude the investments on which the assessee has not received any dividend income in view of the decision in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd., [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] and case of ACB India Ltd [2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Issues:Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - Exempt income and disallowance computation.Issue 1: Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8DThe case involved an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) relating to AY 2015-16, where the AO computed a disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D at Rs. 40,35,192, adding it to the total income of the company. The assessee argued that no disallowance should be made on shares where no dividend was received and that the share capital and free reserves exceeded the investments. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that Rule 8D was applicable as the company did not disallow any expense for earning exempt income. The Tribunal noted that the AO's computation did not consider that the assessee received dividends only on certain investments. Referring to various decisions, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance by considering only investments that yielded dividend income, excluding those without dividends, in line with previous tribunal and court decisions.Analysis:The AO initially computed a disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D, adding it to the total income of the assessee company. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, stating that Rule 8D was applicable as the company did not disallow any expense for earning exempt income. The Tribunal, however, noted that the computation did not consider that the assessee received dividends only on certain investments, not all. The Tribunal referred to decisions that emphasized considering only investments that yielded dividend income for computing disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance, excluding investments without dividend income, in accordance with previous tribunal and court decisions.This detailed analysis of the disallowance issue highlights the importance of correctly computing disallowances under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, ensuring that only investments that have yielded dividend income are considered for such computations. The Tribunal's decision to direct the AO to recompute the disallowance based on investments with dividend income aligns with established legal principles and precedents, emphasizing the need for accurate and justified disallowance calculations in tax assessments.