TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has received dividend income of Rs. 14.79 lakhs and claimed the same as exempt. The assessee did not disallow any expenditure u/s 14A of the Act. Hence, the Assessing Officer computed the disallowance as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act, by applying Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules at Rs. 26.35 lakhs and disallowed the same. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4. We heard parties on this issue and perused the record. The learned AR submitted that the assessee had sold its vacant piece of land to M/s.ITC Limited and received a sum of Rs. 21.40 crores as sale proceeds. The assessee has invested a sum of Rs. 14 crore in the schemes of Mutual Fund, which has generated dividend income of Rs. 14.79 lakh. The learned AR further submitted that the assessee has not used any loan funds for making the impugned investment. Further the own funds available with the assessee is also in excess of value of investment. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Karnataka Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and did not render any decision. Further the facts available in the case of Syntex Industries Limited (supra) show that the assessee had made minor investments out of surplus funds, while in the instant case the assessee has not shown that it had surplus funds and further investments made by it could be regarded as minor in nature. Hence, in our view, the assessee cannot take support of the above said decision. 8. However, we noticed that the assessee has made investment in Mutual Funds units which does not involve use of much of administrative capabilities. Accordingly, we are of the view that the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) should not be applied to the facts of the present case. Since the assessee has received exempt income, some disallowance is called for to meet the requirements of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to make lump sum disallowance of Rs. 25,000/- towards administrative expenses and, in our view, the same would meet the requirements of sec.14A of the Act. 9. The next issue contested by the assessee relates to disallowance of expenditure claimed towards software purchase. The assessee had purchased a sof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inate bench in the case of Allegis Services India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and identical disallowance made was deleted by the co-ordinate bench on the reasoning that the TDS liability cannot be fastened upon the assessee retrospectively. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the operating portion of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench:- "4. Ground Nos.2 to 5 are regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') of payment towards software licenses treated by the Assessing Officer as royalty for want of TDS. The assessee has also raised additional grounds which are as under : Corporate tax matters 21. " Without prejudice to the grounds 2 to 4, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that during the Financial Year 2008-09 relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-10, the Appellant was not liable to withhold tax on the payments made as there was no provision under the Act mandating the deduction of tax at source on the payments made on purchase of computer software and there were many favorable judicial precedence including the jurisdictional tribunal rulings. 22. Without prejudice to the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the transaction in question regarding payment of purchase of software was completed in the F.Y.2008-09 whereas the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra) was passed on 15.10.2011 much later than the time of transaction carried out by the assessee. It is also not in dispute that this issue of considering the payment for purchase of software as royalty is a highly debatable issue and various High Courts have taken divergent views on this issue. The co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Aurigene Discovery Technologies (P) Ltd. (supra) has considered an identical issue in paras 3 to 5 as under : " 03. We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant orders. The assessee resubmitted the plea taken before the lower authorities and placed on the ruling of the Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT in Sonata Information Technology Ltd v. ACIT (103 ITD 324) which had held that payments for software licenses do not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices and jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, the appellant submitted that the said judgment shall not be applicable since it was pronounced on 15/10/2011 and Velankani Mauritius Ltd., whereas the liability to deduct tax for the appellant was the F.Y. 2010-11. The appellant has relied on the judgment of Cochin Tribunal in the case of Kerala Vision Ltd and Agra Tribunal in the case of Virola International, wherein it was held that - "The law amended was undoubtedly retrospective in nature but so far as tax withholding liability is concerned, it depends on the law as it existed at the point of time when payments, from which taxes ought to have been withheld, were made. The tax-deductor cannot be expected to have clairvoyance of knowing how the law will change in future." Further, software payment was included in definition of royalty only vide Explanation to section 9(1)(vi)inserted retrospectively vide Finance Act, 2012 and when the purchase was made, the appellant did not have the benefit of clarification brought by the retrospective amendment. It is impossible to fasten liability for deducting tax at source retrospectively as tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax was to be deducted u/s 194J. The law as extant on the date when the payment for obtaining the software was made, has not categorically laid down that tax is required to be deducted. It is impossible to fasten liability for deducting tax at source retrospectively. 5.4 In view of the above decisions, it is correct to say that it is not possible to fasten liability for deducting tax at source at the time when the payment is credited or made. When purchase of software was made the assessee did not have the benefit of the clarification brought about by the retrospective amendment. The contention of the appellant is correct that the software payment disallowed by the AO did not warrant withholding of the tax u/s 40(a)(ia) and 40(a)(ia) (by an order of corrigendum dt 20.11.2015) of the Act. Therefore idsallowance made by the AO on account of software payment want of withholding of tax is hereby deldted." 05. The CIT(A) followed the decision of this Tribunal in M/s WS Atkins India Pvt. Ltd, supra, which referred the decisions of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in Infotech Enterprises Ltd in ITA 115/HYD/2011 wherein it has been held that section 40(a)(ia) would not app....