2025 (6) TMI 718 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Clarifies Income Tax Deduction Rules: Proportional Disallowance Tied to Exempt Income Investments in Specific Tax Year

DCIT, Central Circle-1 (1), Mumbai Versus Edel Finance Company Limited And (Vice-Versa)

The Tribunal addressed the applicability of section 14A of the Income Tax Act regarding expenditure related to exempt income. It upheld the first ... Disallowance made u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D - assessee having made suo motu disallowance - what should be the average value of investment for computing disallowance of indirect (administrative) expenses under Rule 8D(2)? - HELD THAT:- While computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2) based on average value of investment, only those investments can be considered, which have yielded exempt income during the year under consideration. The investments which have not yielded any exempt income during the year, cannot form part of average value of investment. Undisputedly, the first appellate authority, while deleting major part of the disallowance has followed the settled legal position. While considering the legality of identical view expressed by the first appellate authority in assessee’s case in A.Y. 2018-19, the Tribunal [2024 (9) TMI 1754 - ITAT MUMBAI] has upheld the decision of first appellate authority. In the impugned assessment year, no factual distinction has been brought to our notice by the ld. DR. That being the case, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of the first appellate authority. Also while rejecting suo motu disallowance made by the assessee, the A.O. has recorded his reasoning. Therefore, it cannot be said that the rejection of assessee’s computation is without recording any dissatisfaction. In any case of the matter, under identical facts and circumstances, the cross objection filed by the assessee in A.Y. 2018-19 (supra) was not entertained. The primary issue considered by the Tribunal pertains to the applicability and computation of disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D, specifically regarding the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. The core legal questions examined include whether the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2022 mandate the application of section 14A even in the absence of exempt income during the relevant previous year; whether the amendments override judicial precedents that held no disallowance is warranted without exempt income; and the correctness of the quantum of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) vis-`a-vis the evidence furnished by the assessee concerning borrowed funds and their attribution.Under the first issue, the Tribunal analyzed the impact of the Finance Act, 2022 amendments to section 14A, which purportedly extend the applicability of disallowance irrespective of the accrual or receipt of exempt income in the relevant year. The Revenue contended that these amendments nullify earlier judicial decisions relied upon by the assessee, which held that no disallowance under section 14A can be made absent exempt income. The assessee, conversely, argued that the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D must be computed only in respect of investments that actually yielded exempt income during the year.In addressing these contentions, the Tribunal referred to a well-established judicial principle that for the purpose of computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2), only the average value of investments yielding exempt income during the relevant year should be considered. Investments not yielding exempt income are excluded from this computation. The Tribunal observed that the first appellate authority correctly applied this settled legal position by restricting the disallowance to the investments that generated exempt income, thereby reducing the disallowance significantly from the AO's computation.Further, the Tribunal noted that the identical issue had been adjudicated in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2018-19, where a coordinate bench upheld the first appellate authority's approach. Since no factual distinction was demonstrated by the Revenue for the current year, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the precedent and upheld the first appellate authority's decision.Regarding the second issue on whether the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2022 override earlier judicial precedents, the Tribunal implicitly rejected the Revenue's submission by adhering to the settled principle that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) is to be computed based on investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal's reliance on earlier decisions and the absence of any contrary factual matrix indicated that the amendments did not warrant a different approach in this case.The third issue concerned the quantum of disallowance made by the AO, specifically the addition of Rs. 2,35,53,078/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), which the AO computed without evidence that the borrowed funds on which interest was paid were directly attributable to earning taxable income only. The assessee challenged this disallowance, and the first appellate authority reduced it to Rs. 7,67,694/- after considering the investments yielding exempt income.The Tribunal found that the AO had recorded his reasoning while rejecting the assessee's suo motu disallowance, thus satisfying the requirement of recording satisfaction under section 14A(2). However, the Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's reduction of the disallowance amount, emphasizing that the disallowance must be proportionate and based on correct computation principles. The Tribunal also declined to entertain the assessee's cross objection, noting that under identical facts and circumstances, a similar cross objection for the assessment year 2018-19 was not entertained.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross objection, affirming the first appellate authority's order. The Tribunal's key holding reiterates that for disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2), only investments yielding exempt income during the relevant year are to be considered in computing the average value of investments. The Tribunal stated: 'while computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2) based on average value of investment, only those investments can be considered, which have yielded exempt income during the year under consideration.'This judgment preserves the core legal principle that section 14A disallowance is not automatic or absolute but must be linked to the existence of exempt income and the corresponding investments that generate such income. The Tribunal's approach ensures that disallowance is not arbitrarily inflated by including investments unrelated to exempt income, thereby safeguarding the assessee's legitimate interests while ensuring compliance with the statutory provisions.