2010 (8) TMI 77 - HC - Income Tax

Section 14A and Rule 8D upheld: No deduction allowed for expenses related to exempt dividend and mutual fund income

GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER

The Bombay HC upheld the constitutional validity of Section 14A and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, ruling that no deduction is allowable for expenditure ... Expenditure incurred in relation to 'income which does not form part of the total income' -amendment section 14A to the Finance Act of 2001 with retrospective effect - Constitutional validity of section 14A and of Rule 8D - dividend income received from shares and income from mutual funds - CBDT Circular 14 of 2001 - payment by a domestic company under Section 115O(1) - Principles guide in determining as to whether an amendment is prospective or retrospective - HELD THAT: - Our conclusions in this judgment are as follows: i) Dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was applicable for Assessment Year 2002-03 is not includible in computing the total income of the assessee. Consequently, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under the Act, by virtue of the provisions of Section 14A(1); ii) The payment by a domestic company under Section 115O(1) of additional income tax on profits declared, distributed or paid is a charge on a component of the profits of the company. The company is chargeable to tax on its profits as a distinct taxable entity and it pays tax in discharge of its own liability and not on behalf of or as an agent for its shareholders. In the hands of the shareholder as the recipient of dividend, income by way of dividend does not form part of the total income by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(33). Income from mutual funds stands on the same basis; iii) The provisions of sub sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 are constitutionally valid; iv) The provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules as inserted by the Income Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2008 are not ultra vires the provisions of Section 14A, more particularly sub section (2) and do not offend Article 14 of the Constitution; v) The provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules which have been notified with effect from 24 March 2008 shall apply with effect from Assessment Year 2008-09; vi) Even prior to Assessment Year 2008-09, when Rule 8D was not applicable, the Assessing Officer has to enforce the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 14A. For that purpose, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to determine the expenditure which has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. The Assessing Officer must adopt a reasonable basis or method consistent with all the relevant facts and circumstances after furnishing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all germane material on the record; vii) The proceedings for Assessment Year 2002-03 shall stand remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall determine as to whether the assessee has incurred any expenditure (direct or indirect) in relation to dividend income / income from mutual funds which does not form part of the total income as contemplated under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer can adopt a reasonable basis for effecting the apportionment. While making that determination, the Assessing Officer shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of producing its accounts and relevant or germane material having a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal and the writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include:(A) Whether the Tribunal erred in applying Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to disallow expenditure related to dividend income, which is not part of the total taxable income.(B) Whether the Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination under Section 14A(2) and the application of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.(C) The constitutional validity of Section 14A(2) and (3) and Rule 8D.(D) Whether Rule 8D and the provisions of Section 14A(2) and (3) have retrospective effect.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS(A) Applicability of Section 14A to Dividend IncomeRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 14A was introduced to disallow deductions of expenditure incurred in relation to income not forming part of the total income. The Supreme Court's decisions in cases like CIT vs. Maharashtra Sugar Mills and Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation had previously allowed such deductions, which Section 14A sought to overcome.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court clarified that Section 14A applies to dividend income because such income does not form part of the total income under Section 10(33). The tax under Section 115O is on the company, not on the dividend income in the hands of the shareholder.Conclusions: Section 14A applies to dividend income, and related expenditure must be disallowed.(B) Tribunal's Remand to the Assessing OfficerRelevant Legal Framework: The Tribunal remanded the matter for a fresh determination under Section 14A(2), which was procedural and deemed retrospective by the Tribunal.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that the Assessing Officer must objectively determine the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding expenditure related to non-taxable income. The Tribunal's remand was justified to allow a fresh determination.Conclusions: The remand was appropriate, and the Assessing Officer must determine the expenditure using a reasonable method.(C) Constitutional Validity of Section 14A(2) and (3) and Rule 8DRelevant Legal Framework: Section 14A(2) and (3) and Rule 8D provide the method for determining the disallowance of expenditure related to non-taxable income.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court upheld the constitutional validity, stating that the provisions provided a uniform method for determination, applicable when the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the assessee's claim. The method prescribed is not arbitrary or unreasonable.Conclusions: The provisions are constitutionally valid and do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.(D) Retrospective Effect of Section 14A(2) and (3) and Rule 8DRelevant Legal Framework: Rule 8D was notified to take effect from 24 March 2008, and Section 14A(2) and (3) were introduced with effect from 1 April 2007.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that Rule 8D applies prospectively from Assessment Year 2008-09. However, even before Rule 8D, the Assessing Officer was required to disallow expenditure related to non-taxable income under Section 14A(1) using a reasonable method.Conclusions: Rule 8D is prospective, but Section 14A(1) applies retrospectively, requiring reasonable disallowance of expenditure.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court established several key principles:'The mandate of Section 14A is to prevent claims for deduction of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income of the assessee.''Section 14A(1) is enacted to ensure that only expenses incurred in respect of earning taxable income are allowed.''The provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules which have been notified with effect from 24 March 2008 shall apply with effect from Assessment Year 2008-09.'Final Determinations: The appeal and writ petition were disposed of with no order as to costs, and the proceedings for Assessment Year 2002-03 were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.