Section 14A disallowance limited when own resources exceed investments, ESOP deduction allowed as revenue expenditure

The ITAT Ahmedabad ruled on multiple issues in favor of the assessee company. For section 14A disallowance, the tribunal held that with own resources of Rs. 3158 crores against investments of Rs. 883 crores, no interest disallowance was required, limiting disallowance to Rs. 41.48 lakhs instead of Rs. 7.02 crores. On transfer pricing adjustments, no further adjustment was required following previous tribunal decisions. ESOP deduction was allowed as revenue expenditure following HC precedents. The matter regarding LTCG computation and notional interest income was remitted to AO for re-examination and detailed verification respectively.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for AY 2018-19 are:

• Whether the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act should be restricted to investments yielding exempt income or deleted entirely, considering the assessee's prior disallowance in the return of income.
• Whether the upward adjustment of interest income on loans given to Associate Enterprises (AEs) by applying filters such as "general purpose/refinance" and adding forex risk adjustment is justified, especially when the interest charged is at arm's length price (ALP) as per prior decisions and comparable benchmarks.
• Whether the upward adjustment relating to share application money, treated as quasi capital, is justified.
• Whether the disallowance of deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) of the Act is sustainable, especially when the deduction was approved by DSIR before the assessment order.
• Whether additional claims made during assessment or appellate proceedings, not originally claimed in the return, are admissible.
• Whether the deduction claimed on account of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) should be allowed fully, including additional claims made after the original/revised return due to arithmetical errors.
• Whether additional claims resulting in reduction of long-term capital gains (LTCG) are admissible.
• Whether notional interest income credited in the Profit and Loss Account on preference shares should be excluded from taxable income as it is not real income.
• Whether the Revenue's appeal challenging allowance of ESOP deductions under the head "any other amount allowable as deduction" based solely on SEBI guidelines is sustainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D

Legal framework and precedents: Section 14A read with Rule 8D mandates disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. The principle is to disallow interest or other expenses attributable to earning exempt income.

Court's reasoning and findings: The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 6.61 crores on the ground that the assessee's investments in unlisted equities and preference shares were made out of borrowed funds, as equity and share capital sufficed only for fixed assets. The CIT(A) directed recomputation considering only investments yielding exempt income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had own funds (share capital plus reserves) of Rs. 3158 crores against investments of Rs. 883 crores, indicating that own funds were used for investments yielding exempt income. The assessee also demonstrated that expenses attributable to exempt income were limited to Rs. 41.48 lakhs, which was already disallowed in the return.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that since own funds were sufficient to cover investments, no disallowance on account of interest was warranted beyond the already disallowed amount. The decision of the Assessing Officer to disallow Rs. 7.02 crores was rejected as unsupported.

Competing arguments: The Revenue relied on the Allahabad High Court decision in CIT vs. Subrata Roy to argue that borrowed funds used for investments yielding exempt income attract disallowance. The assessee contended investments were strategic and no continuous efforts were made to earn dividend, thus expenses were business-related.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

Upward adjustment of interest on loans to Associate Enterprises

Legal framework and precedents: Transfer Pricing provisions under Section 92CA(3) require that international transactions be at arm's length price. Comparable uncontrolled price and filters like "primary purpose" and "general purpose/refinance" are used to determine ALP.

Court's reasoning and findings: The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) upheld an upward adjustment of Rs. 23.51 lakhs by applying a 100 basis points forex risk adjustment and using a "general purpose/refinance" filter. The assessee argued that the interest rate charged (3.9%) was within the ALP range, comparable to LIBOR + 2.5% benchmark established in its own earlier case for AY 2008-09, and that forex risk was already factored into the comparable data, negating the need for additional adjustment.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal relied on the earlier decision in the assessee's own case, holding that the interest charged was within acceptable ALP parameters and the additional forex risk adjustment was not justified.

Competing arguments: The Revenue supported the adjustment, emphasizing difficulty in finding exact comparables and justifying the filters and forex risk addition.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

Adjustment relating to share application money

Legal framework and precedents: Share application money is considered quasi capital under transfer pricing regulations and not a loan transaction.

Court's reasoning and findings: The assessee contended that no adjustment was warranted as share application money is not a loan. The CIT(A) upheld the adjustment, but the Tribunal found that the nature of share application money does not attract interest adjustments.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

Disallowance of deduction under Section 35(2AB)

Legal framework: Section 35(2AB) allows weighted deduction for in-house R&D expenditure approved by DSIR.

Findings: The assessee's claim of Rs. 58.36 crores was approved by DSIR before assessment. However, this ground was not pressed before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The ground was dismissed as not pressed.

Admissibility of additional claims during assessment/appellate proceedings

Legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. held that claims for deduction not made by filing a revised return cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer. However, various High Courts and Tribunals have recognized the discretion of appellate authorities to admit additional claims not made in the original return, provided facts are on record.

Court's reasoning and findings: The Tribunal noted that denying lawful claims on technical grounds would violate Article 265 of the Constitution. It relied on judgments from Bombay High Court, Delhi High Court, and others permitting additional claims before appellate authorities. CBDT Circulars also encourage officers to assist taxpayers in claiming rightful reliefs.

Application to facts: The assessee's additional claims, though not made in the original/revised return, were based on facts on record and hence admissible before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on this ground.

Deduction on account of ESOP expenses

Legal framework and precedents: ESOP expenses are recognized as revenue expenditure and allowable deduction if they represent actual cost to the employer. Employee perquisites arising from ESOP are taxable under Section 17(2) as salary income. The employer is entitled to deduction of ESOP expenses to avoid double taxation. Judicial precedents from Delhi High Court, Madras High Court, and various Tribunal decisions support allowability of ESOP expenses.

Court's reasoning and findings: The Assessing Officer disallowed ESOP expenses as notional or capital in nature. The CIT(A) reversed this, holding that disallowance would result in double taxation since employees had already paid tax on perquisites. The Revenue challenged allowance of Rs. 3.12 crores, while the assessee claimed the full amount of Rs. 4.90 crores due to inadvertent under-claim.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's computation and held that the entire ESOP expense of Rs. 4.90 crores is allowable. It also held that the additional claim for ESOP deduction made after original return is admissible.

Competing arguments: The Revenue relied on SEBI guidelines and argued that deduction is not permissible unless liability has arisen or been paid during the year.

Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on ESOP deductions.

Additional claim resulting in reduction of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)

Legal framework: Correct computation of capital gains is essential for correct taxable income.

Court's reasoning and findings: The assessee mistakenly reported higher LTCG and sought reduction by Rs. 21.62 lakhs. CIT(A) rejected the claim. The Tribunal, following the principle of allowing correct taxable income and in line with the approach on additional claims, remitted the matter to Assessing Officer for recomputation.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Notional interest income on preference shares

Legal framework and accounting principles: Under Ind-AS, debt and equity components of preference shares are separately reported, leading to recognition of notional interest expense/income. Notional interest income is a book entry and not real income.

Court's reasoning and findings: The assessee credited notional interest income of Rs. 37.76 lakhs to P&L but inadvertently failed to exclude it from taxable income. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed exclusion. The Tribunal observed that detailed examination of accounts is necessary to determine the impact of this notional income on taxable income.

Conclusion: The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for detailed examination.

Revenue's appeal on ESOP deduction

Legal framework: Deduction under Income-tax Act is distinct from SEBI guidelines. Deduction is allowable only if liability has arisen or payment made during the year.

Court's reasoning and findings: The CIT(A) allowed ESOP deduction relying on judicial precedents. The Tribunal upheld this view and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Since the assessee had enough own resources in the form of share capital, reserves and surplus to the tune of Rs. 3158 crores and investments were only to the tune of Rs. 883 crores, it is by now judicially established to presume that own funds have been utilized for the dividend yielding investments. Hence, no disallowance on account of interest is required to be made."

"The rate of interest charged by the assessee was within the acceptable range of LIBOR plus 2.5% as held in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09 and the additional forex risk adjustment of 100 basis points is not justified."

"If the appellant company is not allowed the deduction of expenditure i.e. 'perquisite value' on which the employee has already paid the taxes, it would result into double taxation, which is completely against the principles of natural justice."

"The appellate authorities have the discretion whether or not to permit additional claims to be raised, and they have jurisdiction to entertain such claims even if not made in the original return, provided the facts are on record."

"Notional interest income credited in the Profit and Loss Account is a book entry and not real income chargeable to tax; however, its impact on taxable income requires detailed examination."

"Denial of lawful claims on account of procedural technicalities would result in levy and collection of more tax than sanctioned by law, violating Article 265 of the Constitution."

Final determinations:

• Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is restricted to Rs. 41.48 lakhs already disallowed; excessive disallowance is set aside.
• Upward adjustment of interest on loans to Associate Enterprises is not justified; interest charged is at arm's length.
• Adjustment relating to share application money is not sustainable.
• Disallowance of deduction under Section 35(2AB) is dismissed as not pressed.
• Additional claims made during assessment and appellate proceedings are admissible and should be considered on merits.
• Full ESOP expenses of Rs. 4.90 crores are allowable; Revenue's appeal on ESOP disallowance is dismissed.
• Additional claim reducing LTCG is allowed for recomputation.
• Notional interest income issue is remanded to Assessing Officer for detailed examination.
• Revenue's appeal challenging ESOP deduction based on SEBI guidelines is dismissed.

---