TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....further contended that the investment made by the assessee was strategic investment and in the subsidiary companies. Accordingly no expenditure was required to be incurred for maintaining the portfolio. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee and confirmed the disallowance made by AO. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee has pointed out that though an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2008-09 and it was held that Rule 8D is applicable for disallowance u/s 14A in respect of exempt income, however for the A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee was asked to furnish the computation of expenditure disallowed by him which was not explained and, therefore, the disallowance made by AO was confirmed. The Ld. AR has submitted that the AO was required to record the satisfaction that the claim of the assessee is not correct having regard to the accounts of the assessee and only if the AO is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the accounts, he could apply Rule 8D. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t once the proximate relationship between the expenditure and the exempt income is established the disallowance has to be made as per Rule 8D. He has relied upon the orders of authorities below. 6. In rebuttal, the Ld. AR has submitted that Hon'ble High Court in para 32 and 33 has clearly laid down the principles for disallowance u/s 14A and held that sub section 2 does not ifso facto enable the AO to apply the method prescribed by the Rule straightaway without considering whether the claim made by the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income is correct. Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that where the accounts of the assessee furnish an objective basis for the AO to arrive at a satisfaction in regard to correctness of the claim of the assessee of the expenditure, there would be no warrant for taking recourse to the method prescribed by the Rules. 7. Having considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record, we note that so far as applicability of Rule 8D is concerned, there is no quarrel on this point that for the A.Y. under consideration Rule 8D is applicable. Further for the A.Y. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... basis and, therefore, no direct or indirect expenditure is incurred. We find that the department has not disputed this fact that out of the total investment about 98% of the investment are in subsidiary companies of the assessee and, therefore, the purpose of investment is not for earning the dividend income but having control and business purpose and consideration. Therefore, prima facie the assessee has made out a case to show that no expenditure has been incurred for maintaining these long term investment in subsidiary companies. The AO has not brought out any contrary fact or material to show that the assessee has incurred any expenditure for maintaining these investments or portfolio of these investments. In the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court while dealing with the issue of disallowance u/s 14A and application of Rule 8D has recorded the principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2010] (326 ITR 1,) in para 31 as under:- (a) "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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The proviso was inserted earlier by the Finance Act of 2002 with r etrospective effect from May 11, 2001) 33. 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. The method, having regard to the meaning of the expression "prescribed" in section 2(33), must be prescribed by rules made under the Act. What merits emphasis is that the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to determine the expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income, in accordance with the prescribed method, arises if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of the expenditure which the assessee claims to have incurred in relation to income which does not part of the total income. Moreover, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer has to be arrived at, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. Hence, sub-section (2) does not ipso facto enable the Assessing Officer to apply the method prescribed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowance u/s 14A in the case where no dividend has been received, the same is covered against the assessee by the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09, wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision of special bench of Tribunal while deciding the issue. Therefore, we do agree with the finding of the Tribunal on this point. Further since the assessee has raised the new plea in the year under consideration that no expenditure had been incurred by the assessee for earning the exempt income or for the investment in question. We find merit and substance in the contention of the assessee on this point because the investment has been made by the assessee in the group concern and not in the shares of any un-related party. Therefore, the primary object of investment is holding controlling stake in the group concern and not earning any income out of investment. Further the investment were made long back and not in the year under consideration. Therefore, in view of the fact that the investment are in the group concern we do not find any reason to believe that the assessee would have incurred any administrative expenses in holding these investments. The AO h....