9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1094 - HC - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A on ground of eligibility of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) - as per AO Sec. 14A is applicable in such cases where part of the income is not included in the total income - alleged that borrowed funds were used for interest income and dividend income earned - share capital / reserve of the assessee are less than such investment to prove which assessee has used borrowed funds for such investment / FDs - HELD THAT - The two questions proposed by the Revenue are no longer res integra in view of the two decisions of this Court in CIT vs. Surat District Co. Op. Milk Producer Union Ltd 2018 (8) TMI 1855 - ITAT SURAT wherein as in view of decision decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd vs. Union of India 1985 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal allowing the deduction to the assessee u/s 80P(2)(d) on the amount of interest and dividend earned on the investment / deposits with the other cooperative societies. Further it was held that held that there is no application of section 14A as far as the deduction under section 80A to 80U under Chapter VIA of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. No interference is warranted. This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the ITAT erred in allowing the disallowance of ?1,91,58,728 without appreciating that the assessee failed to establish that no borrowed funds were used for interest income and dividend income earned. 2. Whether the ITAT is justified in deleting the disallowance without appreciating that the share capital/reserve of the assessee is less than such investment, implying the use of borrowed funds for such investment/FDs. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Allowance of Disallowance without Establishing Source of Funds The Revenue contended that the ITAT erred in allowing the disallowance of ?1,91,58,728, arguing that the assessee failed to prove that no borrowed funds were used for earning interest and dividend income. The Assessing Officer (AO) declined the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asserting that Section 14A, which deals with disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to income not included in total income, was applicable. The AO reasoned that the deduction under Section 80P is made out of the gross total income, thus attracting Section 14A. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, distinguishing between exempt income under Section 10 and deductions under Chapter VIA, noting that the AO failed to understand this distinction. The CIT(A) emphasized that the interest and dividend income were already part of the gross total income and not claimed as exempt income, thus Section 14A was not applicable. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's investments were made from surplus funds accumulated over years, not from borrowed funds. The Tribunal cited previous decisions, including CIT vs Kribhco and CIT vs Kings Export, supporting the view that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made for income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Issue 2: Justification of Deleting Disallowance Based on Share Capital/Reserve The Revenue argued that the ITAT was unjustified in deleting the disallowance without considering that the assessee's share capital/reserve was less than the investment, suggesting the use of borrowed funds. The Tribunal found that the assessee's investments were made from surplus funds dating back to 1951, not from current year's borrowed funds. The Tribunal reiterated that the interest and dividend income did not result from investments made during the year, thus no direct or indirect expenditure was incurred for earning such income. The Tribunal referenced its own previous decisions in the assessee's case for earlier assessment years, consistently holding that the investments were made from surplus funds, and no new investments were made during the year under consideration. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had erroneously applied the judgment in Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., which was distinguishable on facts. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Court referenced its own decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Surat District Co. Op. Milk Producer Union Ltd. and Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad IV vs. Banaskantha Dist. Co. Op. Milk Producers' Union Ltd., which held that Section 14A does not apply to income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Court emphasized that deductions under Chapter VIA, including Section 80P, are distinct from exempt income under Chapter III, and Section 14A is not applicable to such deductions. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order and confirming that no error of law was committed.
|
