Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2014 (9) TMI 434

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been made for the first time by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(A)', in short), but, we need not issue notice on the said aspect in case we agree with the second finding recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 27.09.2013. 3. The respondent-assessee, a subsidiary of Holderind Investments Ltd., Mauritius, was formed as a holding company for making downstream investments in cement manufacturing ventures in India. In the return of income filed for the Assessment Year 2007-08, the respondent-assessee declared loss of Rs. 8.56 Crores approximately. The respondent-assessee had declared revenue receipts of Rs. 18,02,274/- which included interest of Rs. 726/- from Fixed Deposit Receipts and profit on sale of fixed assets of Rs. 16,52,225/-. As against this, the respondent assessee had claimed administrative and miscellaneous expenses expenditure written off amounting to Rs. 8.75 Crores. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, the assessee had filed return declaring loss of Rs. 6.60 Crores approximately. The assessee had declared revenue receipts in the form of foreign currency fluctuation difference gain of Rs. 12,46,595/-. It had claimed expenses amounting to Rs. 7.02....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ther operating expenses of the company. The appellant has also admitted that the said expenditure have been incurred in order to protect their investment as well as exploration of new investments". 6. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, the same reasoning was adopted and followed. 7. However, the CIT(A) issued notice and called upon assessee, why Section 14A should not be invoked? The Section postulates that for the purpose of computing total income under Chapter IV, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. Since the business of the respondent-assessee was to act as a holding company for downstream investments and as it was an accepted fact that they had incurred expenses to protect their investments and explore new avenues of investments, the provisions of Section 14A were applicable. The exact reasoning given by the CIT(A) in this regard in respect of the Assessment Year 2007-08 is as under:- "5.8....Thus, as admitted by the appellant; since business of the appellant exclusively is to act as a holding company for downstream investment in order (sic) companies and the admitted fact that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no disallowance should be made under Section 14A. In other cases, the Assessing officer would have to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to the income which did not form part of the total income and the said basis had to be reasonable and based on the acceptable method of apportionment. Expounding the expression "in relation to" appearing in Section 14A as interpreted in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra), the CIT(A) held that the said expression could not be given a narrow meaning. The expression "in relation to" would include "in connection with" or "pertaining to". No deduction should be allowed in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee with the main object of earning income which did not form part of the total income. He accordingly held that disallowance under Section 14A had no relation with the "dominant and immediate connection" between the expenditure and exempt income. Thereafter, in paragraphs 5.13 to 5.15, the CIT(A) held as under: "5.13 With regards to inapplicability of Section 14A of the Act the appellant stated that they had not utilized any borrowed funds for making such investment and hence, no expenses on account of interest had be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....12, I have given the finding that AO was not correct in disallowing the expenses on the ground of non-commencement business. In the said order however I have upheld the disallowance u/s 14A by giving a detailed finding therein. Since in the year under-consideration the same facts exists as were existing in assessment year 2007-08 and the appellant has also made the same submissions as were given during the appellate proceedings for assessment year 2007-08, therefore relying on my order dated 01.08.2012 vide which I have adjudicated the appellant's appeal for assessment year 2007-08, I hold that in the year under consideration also that no disallowance can be made on account of non-commencement of business. However the addition of Rs. 7,02,54,564/- is to be made on account of disallowance u/s 14A because the appellant has admitted time and again that their main business activity is to act as a holding company for downstream investment in other companies which are engaged in manufacturing cement and that the expenses of Rs. 7,02,54,564/- have been incurred by them under to protect their investments and to explore new avenues of investments. Thus in view of the findings given i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. M/s. Lakhani Marketing Incl., ITA No. 970/2008, decided on 02.04.2014, made reference to two earlier decisions of the same Court in CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Limited, [2010] 323 ITR 518 and CIT Vs. Winsome Textile Industries Limited, [2009] 319 ITR 204 to hold that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned. The second decision is of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. [2014] 223 Taxmann 130 (Guj.). The third decision is of the Allahabad High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 88 of 2014, Commissioner of Income Tax (Ii) Kanpur, Vs. M/s. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. decided on 05.05.2014. In the said decision it has been held: "As regards the second question, Section 14A of the Act provides that for the purposes of computing the total income under the Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Hence, what Section 14A provides is that if there is any income which does not form part of the income under the Act, the expenditure which is incurred for earning the income is not an ....