2025 (10) TMI 998 - AT - Income Tax

Ruling limits Rule 8D(2) disallowance to Rs.10,00,000 and treats loan write-off as allowable business loss; section 115JB adjustment deleted

ITAT (Ahmedabad) upheld CIT(A)'s restriction of the Rule 8D disallowance to Rs.10,00,000, finding the AO failed to record the required satisfaction and ... Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D – assessee has suo-moto disallowed a sum - AO did not identify or disallow any expenditure directly attributable to the earning of exempt income and proceeded to disallow by applying 1% of the annual average of the monthly average of the opening and closing balances of the value of investments - CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to an ad hoc amount - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) observed that the AO had not recorded any satisfaction as required under Rule 8D(1) and had mechanically applied the method prescribed under Rule 8D(2), without fulfilling the prerequisite conditions. Having gone through the order of the CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to Rs. 10,00,000/- for the assessment year in question. Disallowance of claim of business loss/ loan write-off – AO disallowed the claim of expenditure/loss incidental to business which represents write off of loan given to 100% subsidiary Apollo Maschineban GMBH based in Germany - AO has held that since the assessee is not in the business of money lending, it is a capital loss - CIT(A) held that the write off is clearly allowable as a business deduction u/s 28/37 of the Act and thus deleted the addition made by the AO relying on the various judicial precedents cited in his order - HELD THAT:- The assessee has produced the copy of accounts of the various years wherein they have sold the components to that unit and also the copy of account for purchases of critical components from there. For few years, the assessee did business with the 100% subsidiary and promoted business in foreign market through this subsidiary. Owing to continuous losses, the assessee has financed from India by giving loans, and efforted continuously for the new market. After a period of 5 years, when it was not possible to finance more, it was decided to close and shut down the business of that Unit and sold the unit to local person. The assessee has made the provision of this amount of outstanding loan in the previous year in the expectation to get the amounts since there was no way to claim as loss incidental to business in the year under consideration, the amount was paid as inter-corporate loan due to business and commercial reasons as stated above has been written off. It is established that the assessee has given loan to establish 100% foreign Subsidiary looking to the future business expansion which was possible only through having the similar type of assessee’s own associate/ subsidiary abroad. As correctly held by CIT in view of the close business connection of the assessee and the foreign subsidiary as narrated above, the assessee has clearly established that this subsidiary was selling goods of the assessee in other countries and in this way it was promoting the business of the assessee company. Therefore, the loans & advances given by the assessee to this German subsidiary were for the purpose of the ^advancement of its own business. The business of German Company was directly linked with Indian company which only wanted to promote the business in other countries. The Germany is hub of various manufacturing process and the assessee also tries to tap into that market for its potential. These facts combined with various data related to history of transaction with subsidiary company establish that the advancement of loans was inextricably linked/ incidental to the business of the assesses. The fact that the loans were advanced during the course of business to help subsidiary to tide over its financial crisis, reveals that the said loans were not for capital purposes. Write off of the same, was. clearly therefore business loss to the assessee, which it was entitled in law to claim u/s 28 read with section 29 of the Act. It is settled law that loans advanced in the course of or incidental to the business of the assessee are allowable when they become irrecoverable. Decided against revenue. Disallowance made in book profit u/s 115JB correctly deleted by CIT(A). ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Assessing Officer's disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Act is sustainable where no expenditure directly attributable to exempt income was identified and Rule 8D(1) satisfaction was not recorded, and whether an ad hoc reduction by the CIT(A) to Rs. 10,00,000/- was permissible. 2. Whether the write-off of inter-corporate loans advanced to a wholly owned foreign subsidiary is allowable as a business deduction under sections 28/37 (and by parity section 36 principles) when the loans were advanced in the course of, or incidental to, the assessee's business and later became irrecoverable, or whether such write-off constitutes a capital loss/not allowable as revenue expenditure. 3. Whether the deletion of the addition made in computing book profit under section 115JB consequential to deletion of the above disallowance(s) was correct. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Disallowance under section 14A/Rule 8D Legal framework: Section 14A disallows expenditure in relation to exempt income; Rule 8D prescribes methods for computing such disallowance and requires a satisfaction as a pre-requisite under Rule 8D(1) before applying the mechanical formula in Rule 8D(2). Precedent treatment: The Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's approach that mechanical application of Rule 8D without recording the requisite satisfaction is impermissible; the reasoning follows established practice that Rule 8D(1) conditions must be fulfilled before invoking the formula. Interpretation and reasoning: The Assessing Officer applied the 1% formula to the average value of investments to arrive at Rs. 56,42,738/- without recording the satisfaction required by Rule 8D(1) and without identifying expenditure directly attributable to exempt income. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to an ad hoc Rs. 10,00,000/- on the basis that the AO had not fulfilled the prerequisite conditions and had mechanically applied Rule 8D(2). The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with that restriction on the facts of the assessment year. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Rule 8D requires recording of satisfaction under Rule 8D(1) before the mechanical computation under Rule 8D(2) can be validly applied; mechanical application absent satisfaction renders the AO's computation vulnerable. Obiter - the particular quantum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as an appropriate ad hoc figure is a discretionary factual conclusion sustained on appeal. Conclusion: The AO's disallowance under section 14A is not sustainable in the manner made; the CIT(A)'s restriction to Rs. 10,00,000/- is upheld and the Revenue's appeal on this ground is dismissed. Issue 2 - Allowability of loan write-off as business loss under sections 28/37 Legal framework: Deductions under sections 28/37 are available for losses/expenses 'incidental to' or 'for the purpose of' business; the test is whether the loss springs directly from carrying on the business or is otherwise incurred out of commercial expediency in furtherance of business operations. Section 36 principles (bad debts) and established canons on commercial expediency are relevant by analogy. Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished): The Tribunal and CIT(A) followed authorities holding that advances/loans made in the course of or incidental to business, where a close business connection is shown and the loans facilitate the assessee's trade (including promotion through subsidiaries/associates), are allowable as revenue loss when irrecoverable. The AO's reliance on an authority (Hasimara) was distinguished on facts because that case involved advances for a new, unrelated line of business and acquisition of capital assets, whereas the present advances were to a subsidiary engaged in closely linked activities. The Tribunal accepted and applied principles from decisions recognizing commercial expediency (including S.A. Builders Ltd. principles), and decisions allowing loss where associate/subsidiary activities promote assessee's business (e.g., Ace Designers, Elecon, Badridas Daga, T.J. Lalvani). Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the factual matrix: the foreign entity was a 100% subsidiary set up to establish local manufacturing/marketing to promote the assessee's products in Europe; there were intercompany sales and purchases and sustained efforts to develop the market which failed over years, resulting in loans being extended and subsequently written off. The loans were advanced to further the assessee's core manufacturing and marketing business and were not for creating capital assets unrelated to business. The write-off was taken as a commercial decision by a prudent businessman when recovery became improbable. Given recorded evidence of close business connection and prior regular lending/interest transactions forming part of the assessee's business operations (including net interest income shown as business income), the write-off was held to be incidental to business and allowable under sections 28/37. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Loans advanced to a subsidiary in furtherance of the assessee's own business, where the subsidiary directly promotes or markets the assessee's products and the advances were made in the course of business, can result in an allowable revenue loss when irrecoverable; such facts distinguish cases where advances relate to a new, unrelated business or capital acquisition and are capital in nature. Obiter - references to comparative authorities and factual matrices provide guidance but do not constitute exhaustive tests for all fact patterns. Conclusion: The write-off of Rs. 4,12,18,805/- was correctly treated as an allowable business deduction under sections 28/37 (and analogous principles), the AO's disallowance is deleted, and the Revenue's challenge is dismissed. Issue 3 - Computation of book profit under section 115JB consequent to deletions Legal framework: Book profit under section 115JB is computed subject to statutory adjustments; additions/disallowances in regular assessment affect book profit computation unless specifically required by Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) to be treated otherwise. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal sustained the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made in computing book profit where the underlying disallowances were deleted on merits; no separate or conflicting principle under Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) was found to mandate maintaining the additions. Interpretation and reasoning: Since the disallowances under section 14A and the write-off addition were deleted on substantive grounds, the consequential book profit addition of Rs. 4,32,91,717/- required deletion. The Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's approach and found no error in deleting the book profit adjustment. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Consequential adjustments to book profit under section 115JB must reflect the outcome of substantive determinations on deductibility; where a disallowance is deleted on merits, the corresponding book profit addition is not maintainable. Obiter - the court did not engage in broad re-interpretation of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) beyond applying it to facts. Conclusion: The deletion of the addition to book profit under section 115JB is upheld as consequential to the deletion of the substantive disallowances; Revenue's appeal on this point is dismissed. Final Disposition The Tribunal sustained the CIT(A)'s order in restricting the section 14A disallowance to Rs. 10,00,000/-, deleting the write-off addition as an allowable business deduction under sections 28/37, and deleting the consequential book profit addition under section 115JB; the Revenue's appeal is dismissed in entirety.