Section 14A disallowance restricted to Rs 2 lakh, paintings allowed as revenue expenditure for facility management services

ITAT DELHI allowed the assessee's appeal on multiple grounds. The tribunal restricted section 14A disallowance to Rs 2,00,000 as the AO failed to record objective satisfaction regarding the assessee's suo moto disallowance. For book profit computation under section 115JB, only actual expenditure of Rs 2,00,000 was directed to be disallowed, not the Rule 8D mechanism. Expenditure on paintings was allowed as revenue expenditure since the assessee provides facility management services and paintings enhance aesthetic appeal for business purposes. The currency burnt in fire issue was remanded to AO for fresh adjudication with additional evidence, directing verification of advance received from scrap dealer and ensuring no double taxation occurs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
2. Disallowance of depreciation claimed on paintings.
3. Disallowance of amount written off on account of currency burnt in fire.
4. Disallowance under Section 14A while computing 'book profit' under Section 115JB of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962:

The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 1,54,06,773/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The AO disallowed the expenses without recording any satisfaction as to why the assessee's suo moto disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- was incorrect. The Tribunal found that the AO had not recorded any objective satisfaction having regard to the accounts of the assessee, as required by Section 14A(2) and Rule 8D(1). The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HT Media Ltd vs. PCIT, which mandates that the AO must first record dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim before applying Rule 8D. Consequently, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 2,00,000/- for the year under consideration.

2. Disallowance of depreciation claimed on paintings:

The assessee incurred expenditure on paintings, which were capitalized as furniture and fixtures and claimed depreciation. The AO disallowed the depreciation, treating the paintings as "personal effects" rather than "capital assets". The Tribunal held that the paintings were used for aesthetic purposes in the business premises, contributing to the business environment and client attraction. The Tribunal allowed the cost of paintings as revenue expenditure, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Wipro Ltd. Consequently, the depreciation claimed on paintings was disallowed, but the cost was allowed as revenue expenditure.

3. Disallowance of amount written off on account of currency burnt in fire:

The assessee claimed a deduction for Rs. 13,00,000/- written off due to currency burnt in a fire. The AO disallowed the claim, citing a lack of supporting evidence and non-compliance with Section 36(2) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the issue should be examined under Section 28 of the Act as a trading loss. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and remanded the matter to the AO for denovo adjudication, directing the AO to verify the facts and, if satisfied, allow the loss as a trading loss. The Tribunal also directed the AO to ensure no double taxation by verifying if the amount was offered to tax in the subsequent year.

4. Disallowance under Section 14A while computing 'book profit' under Section 115JB of the Act:

The AO disallowed Rs. 1,54,06,773/- under Section 14A while computing book profits under Section 115JB by applying Rule 8D. The Tribunal held that the computation mechanism of Rule 8D cannot be applied to Section 115JB as per the Special Bench decision in ACIT vs. Vireet Investments P Ltd. The Tribunal directed the AO to disallow only the actual expenditure of Rs. 2,00,000/- suo moto disallowed by the assessee under normal provisions for computing book profits under Section 115JB.

Separate Judgments Delivered:

The Tribunal delivered a common order for the appeals for AY 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 due to identical issues involved. The decisions rendered for AY 2008-09 were applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2009-10 and 2010-11.

Conclusion:

1. ITA No. 1629/Del/2012 for AY 2008-09: Partly allowed for statistical purposes.
2. ITA No. 6512/Del/2013 for AY 2009-10: Partly allowed.
3. ITA No. 1226/Del/2015 for AY 2010-11: Partly allowed.
4. ITA No. 1227/Del/2015 for AY 2010-11: Partly allowed.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2024.

---