TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount deposited on account of employees' contribution to PF beyond the due date was deductible by invoking the amended provision of section 43B of the Act. 2. That on the facts in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee is not entitled to deduction of the employees' contribution to provident fund, which was paid after the due date as specified in Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, as section 43B cannot be pressed into service because section 43B comes into play only when a deduction is otherwise allowable under the Income-tax Act." 3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Brief facts leading to the above issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed that assessee has made payment of PF at Rs.1,92,913/- on account of employees' contribution to PF beyond the specified limit as prescribed under the PF Act. Hence, he disallowed the aforesaid sum u/s. 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who deleted the addition by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances of the case. Brief facts leading to the above issue are that during the course of assessment proceedings AO noticed that assessee has earned dividend income of Rs.1,65,924/- and claimed the same as exempt u/s. 10(34) of the Act. The AO required the assessee to furnish the details of expenditure incurred for earning this dividend income. The assessee in reply stated that no expenditure has been incurred to earn this dividend income because no new investment was made during the year and no interest at all is paid on the investments made for earning this dividend income. Further, it was clarified by the assessee that no loans were taken for making this investment for earning this dividend income. The AO was not convinced with the reply of the assessee and made disallowance simply by making calculation by applying Rule 8D of the I. T. Rules, 1962 as under: "i) Direct expenses : In the P&L A/c no item of expenditure is identified which can be directly attributable to earning of such income or making of the long term investments listed above. Therefore, this figure is adopted at NIL. ii) Disallowance of Interest not invoked./Amount to be disallowed A*B/C = NIL iii)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....correctness of the claim..." means that before going to the computation, AO has to cross the barrier of the satisfaction with the correctness of the claim, then AO can be permitted to straightaway apply the computation under Rule 8D. 12. Thus the issue in this appeal is with reference to invoking of provisions of section 14A(2) and Rule 8D. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court while upholding the constitutional validity of the section 14A and Rule 8D has this to observe with reference to sub section 2 & 3 of section 14A: "Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A were inserted by an amendment brought about by the Finance Act of 2006 with effect from April 1, 2007. Under sub-section (2), the Assessing Officer is required to determine the amount of expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) was inserted so as to provide a uniform method applicable where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Parliament has provided an adequate safeguard to the invocation of the power to determine the expendi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer must record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure. Sub-section (3) is nothing but an offshoot of sub-section (2) of Section 14A. Subsection (3) applies to cases where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act. In other words, sub-section (2) deals with cases where the assessee specifies a positive amount of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act and sub-section (3) applies to cases where the assessee asserts that no expenditure had been incurred in relation to exempt income. In both cases, the Assessing Officer, if satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, cannot embark upon a determination of the amount of expenditure in accordance with any prescribed method, as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 14A of the said Act. It is only if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, in both cases, that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8D would only come into play when the Assessing Officer rejects the claim of the assessee in this regard. If one examines sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D, we find that the method for determining the expenditure in relation to exempt income has three components. The first component being the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of the total income. The second component being computed on the basis of the formula given therein in a case where the assessee incurs expenditure by way of interest which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt. The formula essentially apportions the amount of expenditure by way of interest [other than the amount of interest included in clause (i)] incurred during the previous year in the ratio of the average value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, to the average of the total assets of the assessee. The third component is an artificial figure - one half percent of the average value of the investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheets of assessee, on the first day and the last day of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 14A could not stand where it was found that for earning exempted income no expenditure has been incurred:- "Held - dismissing the appeal, that the expenditure on interest was set off against the income from interest and the investment in the shares and funds were out of the dividend proceeds. In view of this finding of fact, disallowance under section 14A was not sustainable. Whether, in a given situation, any expenditure was incurred which was to be disallowed, was a question of fact. The contention of the Revenue that directly or indirectly some expenditure was always incurred which must be disallowed under section 14A and the impact of expenditure so incurred could not be allowed to be set off against the business income which may nullify the mandate of section 14A, could not be accepted. Disallowance under section 14A required finding of incurring of expenditure and where it was found that for earning exempted income no expenditure had been incurred, disallowance under section 14A could not stand. Consequently, the disallowance was not permissible. 15. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Justice Sam P Bharucha vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.3889/Mum/2011 dated 25.07.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is incurred with a view to earn taxable income and there is apparent dominant and immediate connection between the expenditure incurred and taxable income, then no disallowance can be made under section 14A merely because some tax exempt income is received by the assessee. 5.2 Averting to the facts of the case in hand, the assessee had made a claim that no expenditure has been incurred or claimed for earning the exempt income. From the details of the expenditure, it is clear that the expenditure incurred and claimed by the assessee has direct nexus with the professional income of the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the assessee has used his official machinery and Establishment for earning the exempt income. The Assessing Officer has not given any finding that any of the expenditure incurred and claimed by the assessee is attributable for earning the exempt income. In other words when the assessing officer has not pointed out that certain expenditure is not incurred for earning the professional income; but are incurred in relation to dividend income or such expenditure is incurred for inseparable and indivisible activities comprising professional as well as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure in relation to exempt income. Even if the assessee claims that no expenditure was incurred in respect of exempt income, the AO is supposed to follow the mandate of Rule 8D if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim. To put it simply, the further disallowance u/s.14A is called for when the AO is not satisfied with the assessee's claim of having incurred no expenditure or some amount of expenditure in relation to exempt income. Satisfaction of the AO as to the incorrect claim made by the assessee in this regard is sine qua non for invoking the applicability of Rule 8D. Such satisfaction can be reached and recorded only when the claim of the assessee is verified. If the assessee proves before the AO that it incurred a particular expenditure in respect of earning the exempt income and the AO gets satisfied, then there is no requirement to still proceed with the computation of amount disallowable as per Rule 8D. From the assessment order, it is observed that the AO simply kept the assessee's submissions on record without appreciating as to whether these were correct or not. He proceeded on the premise as if the disallowance as per Rule 8D is automatic irresp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the case of Priya Exhibitors (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2012) 54 SOT 356 it was held as under: "From the careful study of the observations made by the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra), it is apparent that first the Assessing Officer has to determine the claim of the assessee regarding expenses which neither the Assessing Officer nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has done in the instant case. In fact, the said decision goes against the department itself in so far as their Lordships has held that the Assessing Officer must in the first instance determine whether the claim of the assessee is correct and determination must be made having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The Legislature directs him to follow rule 8D only where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the claim of assessee. " 18. After considering the principles laid down by various judgments, it is imperative that the Assessing Officer can invoke Rule 8D only when he records satisfaction in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The condition precedent for the Assessing Officer entering upon a determination of the....