Tribunal overturns disallowances on Mentha Oil sale loss & Section 14A expenses, citing lack of grounds

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the disallowances made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) on both issues related to the disallowance of loss on the sale of Mentha Oil and disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Tribunal found that the AO did not provide sufficient grounds to disallow the claimed losses and expenses, leading to the deletion of the disallowances.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of loss on sale of Mentha Oil.
2. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

Summary:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Loss on Sale of Mentha Oil

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision upholding the AO's disallowance of Rs. 4,34,79,702/- as a loss incurred on the sale of Mentha Oil at prices lower than the market rate to two parties, Barabanki Trading Co. Limited and Sharp Mint Limited. The AO considered this loss as artificially created. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's transactions were conducted in the normal course of business and the parties involved were not related under section 40A(2) of the Act. The AO did not reject the assessee's books of accounts nor demonstrated any malafide in the transactions. The Tribunal referenced the case of Flipkart India Private Limited, emphasizing that the AO cannot substitute the transaction price with the market price unless the books are rejected under section 145(3) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and deleted the disallowance of the loss.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A Read with Rule 8D

The assessee contested the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D, arguing that the AO did not record dissatisfaction with the correctness of the claim regarding the expenditure incurred to earn exempt income. Additionally, the assessee claimed that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to record specific dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim of disallowance related to employee costs and other expenses. The Tribunal noted that the AO made a general assertion without detailed analysis. Consequently, the Tribunal held that invoking Rule 8D was not in accordance with the law and set aside the CIT(A)'s findings, deleting the disallowance made by the AO.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the disallowances made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) on both issues. The order was pronounced on 31/03/2023.

---