AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1891
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Rule 8D(2) does not differentiate between strategic investments and investments in subsidiary/associate companies with other investments and the word used in the rule is only uvalue of Investment' and hence the investment in subsidiary company shall be included for calculation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2). 2.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to consider the assessee's own funds i.e. capital reserves available on the date of investment which yields exempted income without giving any clear finding that the assessee has invested its own fund. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the assessee company has never given clear break up of investments along with the statistics of own funds and of borrowed funds during the assessment proceedings. 2.5 The learned CIT(A) ought to have taken into consideration that the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal relied on by the CIT(A) has not been accepted by the Department and appeal filed before Hon'ble Madras High Court is pending as on date. 3. After hearing both the parties, it is noticed that similar issue came for consideration before thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctly quantified. The AO had calculated the disallowance at Rs. Nil, Rs. 1,04,38,000/- and Rs. 26,87,000/- under (i), (ii) & (iii) of rule 80 (2)respectively. There is no dispute regarding the first component, because it is Nil. With regard to the second component being the expenditure by way of interest which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt, the AO has determined the amount at Rs. 1,04,38,000/. The AO has taken into account the entire interest expenditure of Rs. .5,79,46,000/- for computing the above disallowance. The Id.AR, in his submission, has given the break-Up of interest which includes (1) interest on bank loans: Rs. 67,92,000/- (2) interest on term loans Rs. 3,82,11,000/- and (3) interest on other accounts: Rs. 1,29,43,000/-. If loans have been sanctioned for specific projects/expansion and have been utilized towards the same, then obviously they could not have been utilized for making any investments having tax-free incomes. From the copy of the sanction letters from State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur it can be seen that the loan was granted with a specific requirement that the loan shall be utilized for purchase of imported machinery while in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal held that such interest has to be excluded. While holding so, it has held as under:- "11. There is no dispute about working of this method so far as rule 8D(2)(i) and (iii) is concerned. It is only with regard to the computation under rule 8D(2)(ii) that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have different approaches. This provision admittedly deals with a situation in which " the assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest during the previous year which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt" . Clearly, therefore, this sub clause seeks to allocate 'common interest expenses' to taxable income and tax exempt income. In other words, going by the plain wordings of rule 8D(2)(ii) what is sought to be allocated is "expenditure by way of interest...........which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt" and the only categories of income and receipt, so far as scheme of rule 8 D is concerned, are mutually exclusive categories of 'tax exempt income and receipt' and 'taxable income and receipt'. No other classification is germane to the context in which rule 8 D is set out, nor does the scheme of Section 14 A leave any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) of the Income Tax Rules, or construe it any other manner other than what is supported by plain words of the rule 8 D (2)(ii). 15. We find that notwithstanding the rigid words of Rule 8D(2)(ii), the stand taken by the revenue authorities about its application, as was before Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd Vs DCIT (328 ITR 81) when constitutional validity of rule 8 D was in challenge, is that " It is only the interest on borrowed funds that would be apportioned and the amount of expenditure by way of interest that will be taken (as 'A' in the formula) will exclude any expenditure by way of interest which is directly attributable to any particular income or receipt (for example-any aspect of the assessee's business such as plant/machinery etc.)". Therefore, it is not only the interest directly attributable to tax exempt income, i.e. under rule 6D(2)(i), but also interest directly relatable to taxable income, which is to be excluded from the definition of variable 'A' in formula as per rule 6D(2)(ii), and rightly so, because it is only then that common interest expenses, which are to be allocated as indirectly relatable to tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to taxable income, are required to be excluded from computation of common interest expenses to be allocated under rule 8D(2)(ii). 17. To the above extent, therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that rigour of rule 8 D (2)(ii) is relaxed in actual implementation, and revenue authorities, having taken that stand when constitutional validity of rule 8 D was in challenge before Hon'ble High Court, cannot now decline the same. Ideally, it is for the Central Board of Direct Taxes to make the position clear one way or the other either by initiating suitable amendment to rule 8D(2)(ii) or by adopting an interpretation as per plain words of the said rule, but even on the face of things as they are at present , in our humble understanding, revenue authorities cannot take one stand when demonstrating lack of 'perversity, caprice or irrationality' in rule 8D before Hon'ble High Court, and take another stand when it comes to actual implementation of the rule in real life situations. Therefore, even as we are alive to the fact that the stand of the learned Departmental Representative is in accordance with the strict wording of rule 8D(2)(ii), we have to hold that, for the reasons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn or any of the Directors has misused the funds invested by the assessee. When the sister concern uses the funds only for business purpose, there was commercial expediency for making investment. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 13. In view of the above, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside. The entire addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted." 10.1 We also rely in the case of Beach Miners Co. Pvt Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2110/Mds./14 dated 06.08.15 wherein held that: "6.1. Ground No.3 - Disallowance of expenditure by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act for Rs. 3,11,34,630/- since the assessee had made investments of Rs. 71,55,33,570/- for earning exempt income. At the outset, we find that there is no merit for the Revenue to make addition of Rs. 3,11,34,630/- invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act because the investment made of Rs. 71,55,33,570/-, bears no cost in the form of interes....