Assessee's 0.5% Section 14A Addition on Dividend Income Upheld; Retrospective Amendment Rejected

The ITAT Mumbai held that the addition under section 14A made by the assessee on a suo motu basis, amounting to 0.5% of the average value of investments yielding dividend income, was justified. The revenue's reliance on the retrospective applicability of the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to section 14A was rejected, following the Delhi HC ruling in PCIT v. ERA Infrastructure that the amendment is prospective only. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s acceptance of the assessee's computation and restricted the disallowance accordingly. The decision was against the revenue.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be made on the entire investment portfolio or only on investments yielding exempt income.Whether the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee under section 14A can be restricted by the appellate authority.Whether the Explanation inserted to section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 has retrospective application to assessment years prior to its enactment.Whether reliance on judicial decisions predating the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to section 14A is appropriate for assessment years before the amendment.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is to be computed only on the investments that actually yielded exempt income, not on the entire investment portfolio, as the "calculation of disallowance under section 14A should be made only on the income yielding investment."The suo motu disallowance made by the assessee was rightly accepted and restricted by the appellate authority; the additional disallowance made by the assessing officer was deleted as it was not in accordance with the law applicable to the assessment year.The Explanation inserted to section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 is prospective in nature and "cannot be applied to assessment years preceding the amendment," hence it is not applicable to the impugned assessment year.The reliance on judicial decisions such as those in ACIT vs. Vireet Investment Pvt Ltd and Reliance Power Ltd, which predate the Finance Act, 2022 amendment, was appropriate and binding for the assessment year under consideration.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory provisions of section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which govern disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income.The Court relied on binding judicial precedents, including the Special Bench decision of ITAT Delhi and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which clarified that the Explanation to section 14A introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and not retrospective.The Court emphasized that disallowance under section 14A is impermissible in the absence of exempt income during the relevant assessment year, consistent with the principle that "when the assessee does not have any exempt income during the year, ... there cannot be any disallowance under section 14A."No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the Court followed established precedents and statutory interpretation principles to uphold the appellate authority's order.

---