TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Department and particularly in view of the Supreme Court Judgments order dated 23.09.2021 in M.A. No. 665 of 2021 we condone such delay in preferring appeal before us. Both appeals are, therefore admitted. ITA No. 318/Ahd/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17):- 3. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts has held to consider the interest on loans raised by erstwhile GEB for the purpose of disallowance under section 14A of the I T Act, 1961. It is submitted that the disallowance is uncalled for and be directed to be deleted. 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in law and on facts has held that the specific interest paid on term loans and working capital and also the guarantee fee cannot be reduced from the total interest while working out the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that in all the earlier years the matter was examined at length and considering the facts of the appellant's case it was held that such interest cannot be considered for disallowance under this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 152.46 crores was sustained, made by ld. Assessing Officer which was sustained to Rs. 61.46 crores by ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, assessee has raised the ground against the sustained addition of Rs. 61.46 crores whereas Revenue has challenged the deletion of Rs. 91 crores out of the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 10. In ITA No.1874/Ahd/2010 vide its order dated 20.6.2014 the Tribunal adjudicated the issue relating to disallowance u/s 14A and held as under :- 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has earned tax free dividend income of Rs 1283.95 lakhs and that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs 18,325.41 lakhs. The assessee has not attributed any expenditure towards earning of exempt dividend income. Therefore, by invoking the section 14A read with Rule 8D he made disallowance of Rs 197.80 crores. We find that a similar issue had come up before this Tribunal in assessee's own case in the immediately preceding Assessment Year 2006-07 wherein the Tribunal restored the matter back to the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was noted by the AO that the assessee had claimed a huge amount of interest expenditure of Rs. 19360.59 lacs, as per the following bifurcation. (Rs. in lacs) Particulars Amount Interest on Term Loans 8981.35 Working Capital 8184.50 Others 677.63 Bank Charges & Guarantee Fees 19435.13 591.65 Less: Interest Capitalized 74.54 19360.59 4.1 At the same time, it was also found by the AO that the assessee had made the investment of Rs. 5,47,709.74 lacs on which dividend earned was at Rs. 508.18 lacs. The AO's objection was that on one hand the assessee has diverted the huge funds towards such investment having exempted income and on the other hand borrowed huge funds of Rs. 3,46,272.51 lacs on which claimed interest of Rs. 19360.59 lacs. Therefore, the AO was of the view that the assessee had diverted the borrowed funds for earning exempted income. The assessee's contention was that the investment during the year was only Rs. 102.32 lacs and rest of the investment was made in the earlier years. According to the AO, if the assessee had not made such investment either in the year under consideration or in earlier years then the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat there was no diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 18796.82 lacs is directed to be deleted." 6. With this factual background, we have heard both the sides. Learned DR has primarily placed reliance on a decision of respected Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO V/s. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd., 117 ITD 169 (Mum) (SB). Learned DR has also pleaded that in one of the assessment year, i.e., in A.Y. 2007-08 learned CIT(A) had sustained the same nature of addition. From the facts of the case, we have noted that there was re-structuring according to which erstwhile GEB was demerged into seven different companies. Post restructuring; the assessment year under consideration is the first year of operation of the assessee company. On one hand, those were the facts which were relied upon by the learned CIT(A). However, on the other hand, the AO has reproduced some of the replies of the assessee through which it was claimed that the said investment was not made by the assessee company out of the borrowed funds but from the consumers, contribution and subsidiaries. There was a reference of the annual accounts of the y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is about the huge amount of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO is required to examine first the correctness of the claim. Whether the interest on term loans, bank charges and guarantee fees were in respect of the business of the assessee. Thereafter, the AO is also required to give a clear finding about the borrowings made by the assessee on which the said interest was paid. The next step is that the AO has to examine the sources of the funds which were invested for earning the dividend income. If the source of such investment is out of the interest bearing borrowings, then only the question of disallowance of interest would arise, otherwise not. On the other hand, the claim of the assessee is that there were sufficient non interest bearing reserves or surplus available. The AO is required to investigate the correctness of the claim that whether the assessee had sufficient non interest bearing fund available and in what form those were utilized by the assessee. If the assessee is in a position to demonstrate that the non-interest bearing funds have actually been invested to earn exempted income then the assessee's claim is legally correct. Thereafter, the q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation to dividend income and/or income from mutual fund which do not form part of the total income as contemplated u/s.14A of the I.T. Act, 1961. It has also been directed that the Assessing Officer can adopt a reasonable basis for effecting the apportionment. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Court that while making that determination, the Assessing Officer should provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of producing its accounts and material having a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6.1. In this judgement at the end, the Hon'ble Court has also recapitulated the conclusion and pronounced that a finding is required whether the investment in shares is made out of own funds or out of borrowed funds. A nexus is required to be established between the investments and the borrowings. In section 14A of the Act expenditure incurred in relation to exempted income is to be disallowed only if the Assessing Officer is satisfied with the expenditure claimed by the assessee pertaining to the said exempt income. Rather, the Court was very specific that in case, no such exercise was carried out by the Assessing Officer then the matter is to be remanded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 14A of the Act. 73. For the reasons which we have indicated, we have come to the conclusion that under Section 14A(1) it is for the Assessing Officer to determine as to whether the assessee had incurred any expenditure in relation to the earning of income which does not form pan of the total income under the Act and if so to quantify the extent of the disallowance. The Assessing Officer would have to arrive at his determination after furnishing an opportunity to the assessee to produce its accounts and to place on the record all relevant material in support of the circumstances which are considered to be relevant and germane. For this purpose and in light of our observations made earlier in this section of the judgment, we deem it appropriate and proper to remand the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination. Conclusion: 74. Our conclusions in this judgment are as follows; i) Dividend income and income from mutual funds falling within the ambit of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act 1961, as was applicable for Assessment Year 2002-03 is not includible in computing the total income of the assessee. Consequently, no deduction shall be allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of producing its accounts and relevant or germane material having a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case." 6.4 Due to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, it is legally correct to refer this issue back to the stage of the AO to be decided de novo as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Court. The outcome of the above discussion is that the "Additional Ground" raised by the Revenue may be treated as allowed but only for statistical purpose." 8. In the absence of any distinguishing features pointed out by the Departmental Representative, facts being identical, respectfully following the precedent we restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh with the same directions as given by the Tribunal in the Assessment Year 2006-07 in the above quoted order. Needless to mention that he shall allow reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee before adjudicating the issue. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. We further observe that Rule-8D of the IT Rules came into effect from Asst. Year 2008-09 with respect to provisions of sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for earning exempt income. (ii) The method prescribed in the Rule states that the expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of the following amounts : (a) The amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income. (b) In the case of interest on borrowed funds which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt, the amount computed in accordance with this following formula : A x B C A = Amount of interest, other than the amount of interest which is directly attributable to the exempt income stated in (a) above. B = The average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the relevant accounting year. C = The average of total assets as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the relevant accounting year. The term 'Total Assets' means total assets as appearing in the balance sheet excluding the increase on account of revaluation of assets but incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1821/Ahd/2010 for Asst. Year 2007-08 is dated 20.6.2014 the matter is set aside to the file of Assessing Officer to examine the facts and figures of the case in the light of our observations made above in order to arrive at a final conclusion as to whether disallowance u/s 14A is to be made and if so, then the amount thereof which in no case should exceed the exempted income earned by assessee during the year under appeal. It is needless to mention that ld. Assessing Officer shall allow reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee before adjudicating the same. These grounds of assessee and the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 15. Now we take ground no.3 of assessee's appeal which reads as below:- 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the enhancement of Book Profit computed under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Rs. 61,45,72,000/- on account of disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 16. At the outset ld. AR submitted that this ground relates to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act due to which book profit u/s 115JB was enhanced by ld. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.225/ 182/2013-ITA.II) dt. 11-2-2014 issued by the CBDT which clarifies that Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where taxpayer in a particular year has npt earned any exempt income. (a)(iii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the disallowance made under section 14A read with 'Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income, despite the fact that as per the Explanatory Memorandum to FA 2006, under section 14A it is mandatory for the AO to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income in accordance with the prescribed method, which provided in Rule 8D and the AO shall be required to adopt the prescribed method if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, which fact is confirmed by the CIT(A). (a)(iv) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income, despite the fact that the Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de for A.Y. 2016-17 in assessee's appeal, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 is dismissed. 13. Ground No. 2:- Treatment of interest income from staff loans and advances of Rs. 33.36 lacs, interest income from other loans and advances of Rs. 33.23 lacs and miscellaneous income of Rs. 9.46 lacs. 14. The interest income from staff loans and advances of Rs. 33.36 lakhs under consideration, though disallowed by the Ld. AO the same was subsequently allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in assessee's own case. In this respect, the assessee further relied upon the judgment passed in the matter of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 2858/Ahd/2015 and 05 others wherein similar ground was allowed in favour of the assessee, a copy whereof was also submitted before us. We find that the Ld. AO while dealing with the matter the observations made by him is as follows:- "The assessee submitted its reply vide letter dated 05.12.2018. The relevant portion is produced as under: "It is submitted that, the interest received from Staff Loans & Advances during the year amounting to 33.36 lakhs under consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ively In respect of Interest on Staff Loans and Advances, the assessee has contended that the interest income from employees is business exigency as the loans are provided to them for retaining them. In respect of Interest on Other Loans and Advances, the assessee has contended that the giving the advances was business exigency. The above contentions of the assessee are not acceptable, in view of the fact that the nature of these income is not from business activities of assessee and there is separate head for interest income in the Return of income, which is required to be included in Other Income. Further, in respect of Miscellaneous Income, the; assessee has contended that these incomes are from routine business activities. However, the assessee failed to note that the Income, which is not Revenue from Operation, is required to be treated in the other heads, which includes, Income from Other Sources and Capital Gain. In view of the above, the Interest Income as well as Miscellaneous Income totaling to 76.06 lacs are treated as Income from Other Sources" 15. We have considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AO in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. (sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is allowed. 17. In the result, Ground No. 2 of the Revenue appeal is allowed. 18. Ground No. 3:- This Ground relates to the deletion of adjustment made to the Book Profit computed under Section 115JB of the Act on account of disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. 19. The brief facts leading to the issue is this that the Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 77,58,44,809/- to the Book Profit under Section 115JB of the Act on account of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 20. Before the First Appellate Authority the assessee submitted that in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2015-16 the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition. In that view of the matter considering the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by his predecessor, the Ld. CIT(A) hold that the said addition cannot be made to the Book Profit as this item has not been mentioned in any of the Clauses of the Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act. He, therefore, directed the Ld. AO to delete such addition. 21. At the time of hearing of the matter the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. AO. 22. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1961 also added addition made under Section 14A of the Act, 1961 to the book profit. 5. The assessee being aggrieved by the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A while computing book profit of the assessee under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961 preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, deleted addition made in the book profit on the ground that no addition could have been made in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Alembic Ltd (Tax Appeal No.1249 of 2014) and the provisions of sub - sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A cannot be made applicable to clause (f) of Explanation to Section 115JB of the Act, 1961. 6. The Revenue, therefore, went in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Vineet Investment vide 165 ITD 27 (Delhi) and the decision in Alembic Ltd upheld the order passed by the CIT(A). 7. The issue as to whether the addition made under Section 14A of the Act, 1961 while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961 is no more res integra. Accordingly, this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aj Profiles Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 52 (Mum Trib), the Hon'ble Bench has elaborately discussed the issue and held that the disallowance is liable to be calculated as per Rule 8 D of the Rules. After discussing the decisions which have also been relied on by the appellant, the Hon'ble Bench has concluded that; "In view of our foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity with the orders of the AO and we hold that the AO has rightly disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 73,07,018/by invoking the provisions of Section 14a of the Act read with the Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 for computing book profit u/s.115JB(2) of the Act read with clause (f) to Explanation 1 to clause 115JB(2) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restore the orders of the AO. We order accordingly. In the case of CIT (Central-II) Vs. Goetze (India) Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has in ITA No.1179/2010 vide order dated 09.12.2013, held that the disallowance u/s.14A is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating book profits u/s.115JB. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced below. "36. By order dated 16th May, 2012, the following substantial questi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Steel. ITAT, Special Bench has reproduced both these orders in Vireet Investment P. Ltd. (supra) and thereafter it considered as to which decision ought to be followed by a subordinate authority. The department advanced an argument that in the case of Bhushan Steel, Hon'ble Delhi High Court failed to consider subsequent decision of CIT Vs. Goetze India Ltd. (supra). However, the Tribunal after placing reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 (SC) and other decisions has held that it is incumbent upon it follow the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhushan Steel. In this case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under: " However, Ld. Senior Counsel has relied on the decision in the case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held as under: " ITA 593/2015 PR. CIT .....Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Nitin Gulati, Advocate Versus BHUSHAN STEEL LTD. ...Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate with Ms. Roopali Gupta, Advocate. ORDER 29.09.2015 ** ** ** ** ** ** 7. Question No.6 concerns deletion of addition of Rs. 89,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome exempted under Section 10 of the Act shall need to be added in the profit shown in the 'Profit and Loss Account'. When the matter travelled to the CIT (Appeals), since it deleted the addition of Rs. 1,14,43,040/while deciding the question No.1, it consequently deleted such addition under Section 115JB of the Act on the ground that this would not serve any purpose. The Tribunal decided the said issue as follows: "94. We have considered the rival submissions and we find that similar issue was raised by Revenue as per ground No.3 above in respect of regular assessment of income and while deciding that ground, we have already upheld that disallowance of Rs. 5 lakh in respect of administrative expenses will meet the ends of justice and no disallowance is called for in respect of interest expenditure. Hence, for the purpose of computing book profit u/s.115JB of the Act also, we hold accordingly and confirm the addition of Rs. 5 lakh. This ground of Revenue's appeal is partly allowed." As rightly held by both, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal, this issue has a direct correlation with the first question. It was argued by the Revenue that while computing the book pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the above, question (b) does not raise any substantial question of law. 24. Respectfully following the above decision, we hold that no addition in the book profit would be made on the basis of calculations worked out under section 14A of the Act. We allow this ground of appeal in both the years and delete the additions." 23. We take notice of the fact that in context with the third proposed question, the ITAT placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT Vs. Alembic Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.1249/2014) (2) CITI Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 323 24. The issue is squarely covered and in our opinion, no error could be said to have been committed by the ITAT in taking the view that no addition in the book profit can be made on the basis of the calculations worked out under section14A of the Act." 8. In view of above, this Tax Appeal stands dismissed so far as question No.2[b] is concerned." 16.1. Respectfully following the Jurisdictional High Court judgment, the ground raised by the Revenue to include the disallowance u/s. 14A for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act is hereby deleted and the Ground no. 5 ....