2025 (8) TMI 1419 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance under s.14A read with r.8D set aside where mutual fund investments carried forward, no fresh deployment or attributable expenses

Khosla Machines Pvt. Ltd. Versus The ITO Ward 1 (4), Chandigarh

Khosla Machines Pvt. Ltd. Versus The ITO Ward 1 (4), Chandigarh - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible where an assessee claims no expenditure was incurred in relation to exempt income and the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction under section 14A(2) based on the books of account. 2. Whether Rule 8D can be mechanically applied to compute disallowance where (a) no fresh investments in mutual funds were made in the relevant year, (b) investments were carried forward from earlier years and made out of interest-free or own funds, and (c) no separate expenditure has been incurred and charged in the assessee's profit and loss account because management/expense of the mutual fund is reflected in NAV. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Applicability of section 14A(2) prerequisite (recording of satisfaction) before invoking Rule 8D Legal framework: Section 14A(2) places a statutory requirement on the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction, on the basis of the books of account, where the assessee claims no expenditure in relation to exempt income; only after such satisfaction is recorded can the AO determine the amount to be disallowed, using methods including Rule 8D. Precedent Treatment: The judgment does not rely on or discuss any external precedent; the Court applies the statutory text and requirement of recording satisfaction as the controlling principle. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasises that the statutory threshold in section 14A(2) is mandatory and fact-specific: the AO must first demonstrate, having regard to the books of account, that the assessee's claim of no expenditure is incorrect. Absent a recorded satisfaction with demonstrable basis, invocation of Rule 8D is premature and cannot be sustained. The AO in this case applied Rule 8D without recording such satisfaction grounded in the books. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The requirement in section 14A(2) to record satisfaction based on books before proceeding to compute disallowance under Rule 8D is essential and mandatory; failure to do so renders subsequent disallowance invalid. Obiter - none beyond statutory interpretation provided. Conclusion: Disallowance computed under Rule 8D cannot be sustained where the AO has not recorded the requisite satisfaction under section 14A(2) with reference to the books of account. Issue 2 - Application of Rule 8D where no fresh investments or identifiable expenditure in the relevant year Legal framework: Rule 8D prescribes methods to determine expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income; its application presupposes that such expenditure was incurred in the relevant year or that the AO has satisfied himself under section 14A(2). Precedent Treatment: No specific judicial authorities are cited or applied; the Tribunal assesses facts against the stipulations of Rule 8D and section 14A. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examines the assessed year's facts: (i) no fresh investment in mutual funds during the year; (ii) investments were continuity holdings carried forward from prior years; (iii) source of earlier investments was interest-free/own funds; (iv) no redemption or switch-over occurred; and (v) expenses of managing mutual fund portfolios are reflected within the NAV and not separately charged to the assessee's profit and loss account. Given these findings, the Tribunal reasons that there is no demonstrable contemporaneous expenditure incurred by the assessee in the relevant year that could be directly or indirectly related to the exempt income; further, absence of personnel involvement or new decision-making in the year negates the AO's premise that expenditure was incurred. Accordingly, mechanically applying Rule 8D to compute a proportionate disallowance, without factual basis of expenditure in that year, is unwarranted. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where investments in mutual funds are carried forward and no fresh deployment, redemption or scheme change occurs, and no separate expenditure is borne or charged by the assessee (expenses being factored in NAV), Rule 8D disallowance cannot be sustained in absence of recorded satisfaction under section 14A(2). Obiter - Observations on the nature of mutual fund expense allocation (being embedded in NAV) are explanatory of the factual matrix but supportive rather than independently decisive. Conclusion: The disallowance under Rule 8D is not justified on the facts where no fresh investments or identifiable expenditure in the relevant year exist and where fund management expenses are reflected in NAV rather than borne by the assessee; accordingly the disallowance is to be deleted. Cross-reference and Interaction of Issues 1 and 2 Legal interaction: Issue 1 (procedural precondition under section 14A(2)) and Issue 2 (substantive absence of expenditure) are interrelated - even if Rule 8D provides a formulaic mechanism, its invocation must be predicated on the AO's recorded satisfaction that expenses were incurred in relation to exempt income. On the facts, the Tribunal finds both the procedural lapse (no recorded satisfaction) and the substantive absence of expenditure, reinforcing the conclusion to delete the disallowance. Disposition Conclusion: The disallowance computed under section 14A read with Rule 8D is deleted and the appeal is allowed because the statutory precondition under section 14A(2) was not satisfied and there was no factual basis in the relevant year for concluding that expenditure related to exempt income had been incurred.