TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chen.) where difference between the market price and the issue price of the shares offered to employees under the stock option scheme was held to be allowable expenditure under similar circumstances." The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in the memo of appeal filed by the Revenue, the appeal being ITA No. 2490/Mum/2013:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in excluding Rs. 4,61,37,00,000/- being investment made by the assessee in the shares of its subsidiary M/s India Infoline Investment Services Limited while working out the average value of investment for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored." 3. The assessee company is aggrieved by the disallowance of deferred compensation expenses of Rs. 5,99,74,467/- debited under the head employee cost, by the assessing officer (hereinafter called "the AO") which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 4. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice, does not result into incurring of any expenditure rather it results into short receipt of share premium which the assessee company was otherwise entitled to. The receipt of share premium is not taxable and hence any short receipt of such share premium will be a notional loss and not actual loss for which no liability is incurred and such notional losses are not allowable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Similarly, the AO held that no expenditure has been incurred by the assessee company and the benefit or income foregone cannot be considered as business expenditure. In view of the above, the expenditure of Rs. 5,99,74,467/- on ESOP was disallowed by the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) and reiterated its submissions as were submitted before the AO which are detailed in the preceding para's, which are not repeated for the sake of brevity. The assessee company further relied upon the decision of ACIT v. Spray Engineering Devices Ltd. ITAT- ITA No.701/Chd/2009 and CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd. - Hon'ble Chennai High Court and SSI Ltd. v. DCIT (2004) 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....employees. We have observed that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Special BenchBangalore Tribunal reported in (2013) 35 taxmann.com 335(SB) Biocon Limited v. DCIT(LTU) in favour of the assessee company whereby the Hon'ble Special Bench has held as under : "7. We have heard Shri H. Padam Chand Khincha for the appellantassessee; Shri Rohit Jain for the Intervener, M/s. Bharti Airtel; Shri Sachin Kumar B.P. for the Intervener, M/s. Advinus Therapeatics Limited; and Shri K.R. Pradeep for the Intervener, M/s. NDTV Media Limited, (all the four counsel are hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the ld. AR'). We have also heard Shri S.K. Ambastha, the ld. CIT representing the Revenue. The moot question is as to whether the Discounted premium on ESOP also called as the Discount on issue of ESOP or the Employee stock option compensation expense or the Employees compensation expense or simply the Discount etc., is an allowable deduction in the computation the income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession"? This larger question can be answered in the following three steps, viz., I. Whether any deduction of such di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ium on issuing options to employees will be notional loss and not actual loss for which any liability is incurred. The learned Departmental Representative contended that the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of VIP Industries v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No.7242 (Mum.) of 2008 has also taken similar view vide its order dated 17.09.2010.] 9.2.2 Per contra, the learned AR submitted that it is not a case of any short receipt of share premium but that of compensation given to employees. He supported the admissibility of deduction of the amount of discount on the strength of the order passed by the Chennai bench of the tribunal in the case of S.S.I. Ltd. (supra) granting deduction of such discount by treating it as an employee cost. He submitted that the above view taken by the Chennai Bench has been approved by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. PVP Ventures Ltd. [2012] 211 Taxman 554/23 taxmann.com 286. The learned AR argued that PVP Ventures Ltd. (supra) is a solitary judgment rendered by any High Court on the issue and hence the same needs to be followed in preference to any contrary Tribunal order. It was also pointed out that the Chennai bench's view has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or subscribe at a future date, the securities offered by the company at a predetermined price". In an ESOP, the given company undertakes to issue shares to its employees at a future date at a price lower than the current market price. This is achieved by granting stock options to its employees at discount. The amount of discount represents the difference between market price of the shares at the time of the grant of option and the offer price. In order to be eligible for acquiring the shares under the ESOP, the concerned employees are obliged to render services to the company during the vesting period as given in the scheme. On the completion of the vesting period in the service of the company, such options vest with the employees. The options are then exercised by the employees by making application to the employer for the issue of shares against the options vested in them. The gap between the completion of vesting period and the time for exercising the options is usually negligible. The company, on the exercise of option by the employees, allots shares to them who can then freely sell such shares in the open market subject to the terms of the ESOP. Thus it can be seen that it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat when a company undertakes to issue shares to its employees at a discounted premium on a future date, the primary object of this exercise is not to raise share capital but to earn profit by securing the consistent and concentrated efforts of its dedicated employees during the vesting period. Such discount is construed, both by the employees and company, as nothing but a part of package of remuneration. In other words, such discounted premium on shares is a substitute to giving direct incentive in cash for availing the services of the employees. There is no difference in two situations viz., one, when the company issues shares to public at market price and a part of the premium is given to the employees in lieu of their services and two, when the shares are directly issued to employees at a reduced rate. In both the situations, the employees stand compensated for their effort. If under the first situation, the company, say, on receipt of premium amounting to Rs. 100 from issue of shares to public, gives Rs. 60 as incentive to its employees, such incentive of Rs. 60 would be remuneration to employees and hence deductible. In the same way, if the company, instead, issues shares to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n cash alone. Section 43 contains the definition of certain terms relevant to income from profits of business or profession covering sections 28 to 41. Section 37 obviously falls under Chapter IV-D. Sub-section (2) of section 43 defines "paid" to mean: "actually paid or incurred according to the method of accounting upon the basis of which the profits or gains are computed under the head 'profits and gains of business or profession'." When we read the definition of the word "paid" u/s 43(2) in juxtaposition to section 37(1), the position which emerges is that it is not only paying of expenditure but also incurring of the expenditure which entails deduction u/s 37(1) subject to the fulfilment of other conditions. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the word 'expenditure' has not been defined in the Act. However, sec. 2(h) of the Expenditure Act, 1957 defines 'expenditure' as : 'Any sum of money or money's worth spent or disbursed or for the spending or disbursing of which a liability has been incurred by an assessee......'. When section 43(2) of the Act is read in conjunction with section 37(1), the meaning of the term 'expenditure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the ld. DR that discount on shares is 'loss' and hence can't be covered u/s 37(1), also does not hold water in the light of the above judgment. In view of the above discussion, we, with utmost respect, are unable to concur with the view taken in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.(supra). B. Is discount a Contingent liability ? 9.3.1 The learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order by contending that the entitlement to ESOP depends upon the fulfilment of several conditions laid down under the scheme. It is only when all such conditions are fulfilled and the employees render services during the vesting period that the question of any ascertained liability can arise. He submitted that during the entire vesting period, it is only a contingent liability and no deduction is admissible under the provisions of the Act for a contingent liability. The options so granted may lapse during the vesting period itself by reason of termination of employment or some of the employees may not choose to exercise the option even after rendering the services during the vesting period. It was, therefore, argued that the discount is nothing but a contingent liability dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee created provision of Rs. 62.25 lakh for encashment of accrued leave and claimed deduction for the same. The Assessing Officer held it to be a contingent liability and hence not a permissible deduction. When the matter finally came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that the provision for meeting the liability for encashment of earned leave by the employee was an admissible deduction. In holding so, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that : "the law is settled : if a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date. What should be certain is the incurring of the liability. It should also be capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty though the actual quantification may not be possible. If these requirements are satisfied the liability is not a contingent one. The liability is in praesenti though it will be discharged at a future date. It does not make any difference if the future date on which the liability shall have to be discharged is not certain." From the above enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stimate can be made of the amount of the obligation". Resultantly, the provision was held to be deductible. 9.3.5 When we consider the facts of the present case in the backdrop of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Earth Movers (supra) and Rotork Controls India (P.) Ltd. (supra), it becomes vivid that the mandate of these cases is applicable with full force to the deductibility of the discount on incurring of liability on the rendition of service by the employees. The factum of the employees becoming entitled to exercise options at the end of the vesting period and it is only then that the actual amount of discount would be determined, is akin to the quantification of the precise liability taking place at a future date, thereby not disturbing the otherwise liability which stood incurred at the end of the each year on availing the services. 9.3.6 As regards the contention of the ld. DR about the contingent liability arising on account of the options lapsing during the vesting period or the employees not choosing to exercise the option, we find that normally it is provided in the schemes of ESOP that the vested options that lapse due to n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified security" means the securities as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) and, where employees' stock option has been granted under any plan or scheme thereof, includes the securities offered under such plan or scheme. Thus it is discernible from the above provisions of the Act that the legislature itself contemplates the discount on premium under ESOP as a benefit provided by the employer to its employees during the course of service. If the legislature considers such discounted premium to the employees as a fringe benefit or 'any consideration for employment', it is not open to argue contrary. Once it is held as a consideration for employment, the natural corollary which follows is that such discount (i) is an expenditure; (ii) such expenditure is on account of an ascertained (not contingent) liability; and (iii) it cannot be treated as a short capital receipt. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that discount on shares under the ESOP is an allowable deduction. II. IF YES, THEN WHEN AND HOW MUCH? 10.1 Having seen that the discount under ESOP is a deduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....say, four years with equal vesting at the end of each year, then it is at the end of the vesting period or during the exercise period, which in turn immediately succeeds the vesting period, that the employee becomes entitled to exercise 100 options or qualify for receipt of 100 shares at discount. Though the shares are allotted at the end of the vesting period, but it is during such vesting period that the entitlement is earned. It means that 25 options vest with the employee at the end of each year on his rendering service for the respective year. If during the interregnum, he leaves the service, say after one year, he will still remain entitled to exercise option for 25 shares at the discounted premium at the time of exercise of option. In that case, the benefit which would have accrued to him at the end of the second, third and fourth years would stand forfeited. Thus it becomes abundantly clear that an employee becomes entitled to the shares at a discounted premium over the vesting period depending upon the length of service provided by him to the company. In all such schemes, it is at the end of the vesting period that option is exercisable albeit the proportionate right to op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g their services. From the above it is apparent that the company incurs liability to issue shares at the discounted premium only during the vesting period. The liability is neither incurred at the stage of the grant of options nor when such options are exercised. 10.6 Let us consider the facts of the case of S.S.I. Ltd. (supra), which has been strongly relied by the ld. AR in support of his claim for deduction of discount during the years of vesting of options. In that case the vesting period was three years and the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3), inter alia, allowing deduction of Rs. 66.82 lakh under the head "Staff welfare expenses" on account of amortization of discounted value of option over a period of three years. The CIT revised such order by directing the A.O. to disallow ESOP expenditure of Rs. 66.82 lakh. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, it was held that the expenditure in that behalf was an ascertained liability and not contingent upon happening of certain events. It was further noticed that the assessee claimed deduction of such discount on ESOP by following the SEBI Guidelines. As the expenditure itself was an ascertained liability, the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adjustment is warranted at the time of exercise of options, to the deductions earlier allowed for the amount of discount. It is noticed that the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2007-2008 are under consideration and during these years ESOP 2000 has come to an end and the ESOP 2004 has started. Further, the extant issue is a vital part of the overall question of the deductibility or otherwise of the amount of discount under ESOP. 11.1.2 We have noticed above that the company incurs a definite liability during the vesting period, but its proper quantification is not possible at that stage as the actual amount of employees cost to the company, can be finally determined at the time of the exercise of option or when the options remain unvested or lapse at the end of the exercise period. It is at this later stage that the provisional amount of discount on ESOP, initially quantified on the basis of market price at the time of grant of options, needs to be suitably adjusted with the actual amount of discount. 11.1.3 As regards the adjustment of discount when the options remain unvested or lapse at the end of the exercise period, it is but natural that there is no employee c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of any specified security allotted or transferred, directly or indirectly, by any person free of cost or at a concessional rate to an individual who is or has been in employment of that person" shall be treated as a perquisite. It further provides that in a case the allotment or transfer of specified securities is made in pursuance of an option exercised by an individual, the value of the specified securities shall be taxable in the previous year in which such option is exercised by such individual. Such clause (iiia) was subsequently deleted with effect from 1st April, 2001. After certain changes to the relevant provisions in this regard, the position which now stands is that the discount on ESOP is taxable as perquisite u/s 17(2)(vi) for : 'the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares allotted or transferred, directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former employer, free of cost or at concessional rate to the assessee'. Clause (c) of Explanation to section 17(2)(vi) provides that : 'the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security or sweat equity shares, as the case may be, on the da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the employees under the ESOP is the amount of discount w.r.t. the market price of shares at the time of exercise of option, the employees cost in the hands of the company should also be w.r.t. the same base. 11.1.6 The amount of discount at the stage of granting of options w.r.t. the market price of shares at the time of grant of options is always a tentative employees cost because of the impossibility in correctly visualizing the likely market price of shares at the time of exercise of option by the employees, which, in turn, would reflect the correct employees cost. Since the definite liability is incurred during the vesting period, it has to be quantified on some logical basis. It is this market price at the time of the grant of options which is considered for working out the amount of discount during the vesting period. But, since actual amount of employees cost can be precisely determined only at the time of the exercise of option by the employees, the provisional amount of discount availed as deduction during the vesting period needs to be adjusted in the light of the actual discount on the basis of the market price of the shares at the time of exercise of options.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e time of exercise of option. Taxation vis-à-vis Accountancy principles 11.2.1 It has been noticed that broadly there are three stages having effect on the total income of the company in the life cycle of ESOP, viz., (i) during the vesting period, (ii) at the time of unvesting/lapse of options and (iii) finally at the time of exercise of options. It has been argued that the assessee company claimed deduction for the amount of discount during the vesting period on the basis of the market price of shares at the time of grant of options and also reversed the proportionate discount on unvesting/lapsing of options at the appropriate time on the basis of the SEBI Guidelines. If this contention is correct, it would mean that the first two stages have been rightly given effect to. But the appellant assessee does not appear to have made any downward adjustment to the amount of discount at the time of exercise of option by the employees with the difference in the market price of the shares at the time of grant of option and price at the time of exercise of option. The argument seems to be that the SEBI Guidelines do not provide for such downward adjustment. It has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt only to prescribe the way in which the transactions should be recorded in books or reflected in the annual accounts. These guidelines do not have the force of an Act of Parliament. Since the subject matter of tax on income falls in the Union List as per Part XI of the Indian Constitution, it is only the Parliament which can legislate on its scope. 11.2.4 Be that as it may, there is no weight in the contention of the ld. AR that there is no specific provision in the Act on the ESOP discount. It is axiomatic that the taxation rules are always embodied in the relevant Act, either in a specific or a general manner. These can be specific by making a clear cut provision in respect of deductibility of a particular item of expense or taxation of a particular item of income. General provisions are those which set out the overall principles to govern the deductibility or taxability of unspecified items. For example, the definition of 'income' u/s 2(24) has been given by the Act in an inclusive manner. There have been enshrined clauses (i) to (xvi) dealing with the items specifically listed. However, the provision has been couched in such a way so as to include general ite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITR 857 (CA), the income-tax law does not march step by step in the footprints of the accountancy profession.' 11.2.6 The same view has been adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. (supra), by holding that : 'Income-tax is a levy on income. No doubt, the Income-tax Act takes into account two points of time at which the liability to tax is attracted, viz., the accrual of the income or its receipt; but the substance of the matter is the income. If income does not result at all, there cannot be a tax, even though in book-keeping, an entry is made about a hypothetical income, which does not materialise.' 11.2.7 It follows that accounting principles have absolutely no role to play in the matter of determination of total income under the Act. If an accounting principle is referred to by the higher judiciary, then there is an underlying presumption that such accounting principle is in conformity with and not in conflict with the taxation principle. The essence of the matter is that taxation principles are to be followed. If an accounting principle is in conformity with the mandate of taxing principle and reference is made to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deductible. It is evident from the SEBI Guidelines that these deal with the deductibility of discount in the hands of company during the years of vesting period. These Guidelines are silent on the position emanating from variation in the market price of the shares at the time of exercise of option by the employees vis-à-vis the market price at the time of grant of option. In other words, the SEBI Guidelines prescribe accounting treatment only in respect of the period of vesting of the options and the situation arising out of unvested options or vested options lapsing. The very reference by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in SSI Limited (supra) to the SEBI Guidelines is indicative of the fact that it dealt with a year during which the options were vesting with the employees and the company claimed discount during the vesting period. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of PVP Ventures Ltd. (supra) has upheld the view taken by the Chennai Bench in the case of S.S.I. Ltd. (supra). The granting of the binding force to the SEBI Guidelines by the Hon'ble Madras High Court should be viewed in the context of the issue before it, which was about the deductibility of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification of calculation in accordance with our directions becomes imperative. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders on this issue and remit the matter to the file of the AO for finding out the correct amount of deduction accordingly. 12.2 It would be imperative to highlight certain points having bearing on the issue which have come to our notice during the course of hearing. The AO is directed to look, inter alia, into these aspects in quantifying the amount of eligible deduction. a. The assessee-company was a closely held company in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2003-2004 and as such there was no question of the listing of its shares and having some market price at the time of grant of options. Ordinarily, the amount of discount on premium which is written off over the vesting period represents the market price of the shares listed on the stock exchange on the date of grant of option as reduced by the price at which option is given to the employees. However, presently there is no availability of any market price of such shares on the date of grant of option as the company came to be listed on a stock exchange in a subsequent year. On a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent three years. It needs to be set right by apportioning the total amount of the discounted premium evenly over the vesting period of four years. c. It has been noticed above that the stage for the grant of deduction of discount is on the respective vesting of the options. In ESOP 2000, the vesting takes place @ 25% after each year of service. It means that the first part of 25% deduction would be available on the completion of one year from the date of grant of option. The assessee was required to indicate the date of grant of options in respect of which deduction has been claimed in the instant year. Two letters granting options to Shri Murali Krishnan K.N. and Neville Bain have been randomly filed which are dated 2nd April, 2002. If the options are granted on 2nd April, 2002, then 25% of the total option shall vest in the employees at the end of the first year from this date, which date would be 1st April, 2003. As such, the amount would become deductible in the previous year relevant to assessment year 2004-2005 and not 2003-2004. The ld. AR contended that though these letters are dated 2nd April, 2002, but in fact the options were granted on 1st April, 2002. The corr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is aggrieved by the exclusion of Rs. 4,61,37,00,000/- being investment made by the assessee company in the shares of its subsidiary M/s India Infoline Investment Services Ltd. while working out the average value of investment for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 10. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee company has received dividend income of Rs. 4,78,44,562/- and total investment of Rs. 9,15,68,01,378/- was reflected under the Balance Sheet. The AO noted that the assessee company had not attributed any expenses which have been incurred to carry out the activity of making exempt income bearing investment, whereas, it is accepted fact as per the AO for carrying out any such activity, some kind of expenditure are necessarily to be incurred . 10.1. The assessee company submitted before the AO that the assesee company has not incurred any expenses for earning such exempt income in the form of dividend income. The assessee company has made investment in short term surplus funds in liquid schemes of mutual funds out of own funds and no borrowed funds have been used to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble and incorrect and the CIT(A) held that assessee company has received dividend income of Rs. 4,78,44,562/- and there are employees cost of Rs. 134,78,55,834/-, administration and other expenses of Rs. 93,78,29,789/- and interest expenditure of Rs. 21,16,26,394/- and it is wrong to claim on the part of the assessee company that no direct or indirect expenditure has been incurred in relation to the exempt income. The CIT(A) while restricting the disallowance held that out of the total investments of Rs. 915,68,01,378/- as appearing in Schedule 'G' investment in non 115O dividend foreign subsidiary is of Rs. 21,15,15,974/- and further investment in Series A NCD Ordyn Technology Private Limited, Series B OCD Ordyn Technology Private Limited and Equity Fund Trust is of Rs. 30,02,00,000/- on such investment there is a interest income offered during the year, hence, is not investment relating to exempt income. The CIT(A) also held that there is investment in subsidiaries of Rs. 755,92,38,775/- on which no dividend has been received. With this background the CIT(A) held that Rule 8D is squarely applicable and restricted the addition based upon the following chart and hence the disallowa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed funds whatsoever had been utilized for the purpose of investment. The assessee company submitted that the company has made fresh issue of shares in January 2008 and the proceeds thereof were utilized for making investment in the subsidiary company M/s India Infoline Investment Services Ltd.and hence no interest expenses whatsoever has been incurred for making this investment of Rs. 4,61,37,00,000/- in M/s India Infoline Investment Services Ltd. and hence the CIT(A) has rightly excluded the said investment for the computation of average investment. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have observed that the assessee company has made investment in the subsidiary company namely M/s India Infoline Investment Services Ltd. of Rs. 4,61,37,00,000/- on 4th February, 2008 out of proceeds of fresh shares issued by the assessee company in January 2008 which is duly reflected from the orders of the authorities below and it is stated by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee company before us that no borrowed funds whatsoever has been utilized by the assessee company for the purpose of making the investment in the said subsidiary company n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest. Besides, investment decisions are generally taken in the meetings of the Board of Directors/Shareholders for which administrative and management expenses are incurred and in some businesses regulatory approvals are required before setting up the same. There will be regular monitoring of these investments which also may require participation in the meetings of committees, Board of Director and Shareholder meetings. There will definitely be an expenditure incurred towards administrative and management cost etc. towards planning, executing and maintaining these investments. Our view is fortified by the following decisions : i). The observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1(SC) defining the scope of Section 14A of the Act incorporated retrospectively w.e.f. 1st April 1962. The relevant observations are reproduced as under: "The insertion of section 14A with retrospective effect is the serious attempt on the part of the Parliament not to allow deduction in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income, which does not form part of the total income under the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible deductions enumerated in sections 15 to 59 are now to be allowed only with reference to income which is brought under one of the above heads and is chargeable to tax. If an income like dividend income is not a part of the total income, the expenditure/deduction though of the nature specified in sections 15 to 59 but related to the income not forming part of total income could not be allowed against other income includible in the total income for the purpose of chargeability to tax. The theory of apportionment of expenditures between taxable and non-taxable has, in principle, been now widened under section 14A. Reading section 14 in juxtaposition with sections 15 to 59, it is clear that the words "expenditure incurred" in section 14A refers to expenditure on rent, taxes, salaries, interest, etc. in respect of which allowances are provided for (see sections 30 to 37). ii) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the judgment in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. DCIT (2010)328 ITR 0081 on applicability of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 has laid down the legal propositions and detailed summation on the subject with the factual backg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is well known that capital has cost and that element of cost is represented by interest. Besides, investment decisions are generally taken in the meetings of the Board of Directors for which administrative expenses are incurred. It is therefore not correct to say that dividend income can be earned by incurring no or nominal expenditure. This aspect of the matter has also received careful attention of Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in Southern Petro Chemical Industries v. Dy. CIT (2005) 3 SOT 157 (Chennai-Trib). After comprehensive consideration of all the relevant aspects of the case including the provisions of law, the Chennai Bench has held that investment decisions are very strategic decisions in which top management is involved and therefore proportionate management expenses are required to be deducted while computing the exempt income from dividend. In Harish Krishnakant Bhatt v. Income Tax Officer (2004) 91 ITD 311 (Ahd.), the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal has held that, the dividend income being exempt under section 10(33), the interest on capital borrowed for acquisition of relevant shares yielding such dividend cannot be allowed deduction by operation of section 14A. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her to invest or not to invest and whether to retain the investments or to liquidate the same are very strategic decisions which the management is called upon to take. These are mind-boggling decisions and top management is involved in taking these decisions. This decision making process is very complicated and requires very careful analysis. Moreover, the assessee has to keep track of various dividend incomes declared by the investee companies and also to keep track of the dividend income having been regularly received by the assessee. This activity itself calls for considerable management attention and cannot be left to a junior clerk. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United General Trust Ltd. (supra), applying the decision oi Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349: (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC), reversed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. United General Trust (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein the question was as under: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in applying the decision of the Bombay High Court in the ca....