2016 (2) TMI 1290 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s.14A on account of expenses attributable to earning of the exempt income - AR submitted before us that the assessee s own funds are sufficient to cover up the value of investments and hence no interest disallowance is required to be made u/s.14A - HELD THAT - As relying on Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT we delete disallowance made by the AO u/s.14A holding that the assessee s own funds are sufficient to cover up the value of investments in question. Accordingly Ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A on account of earning exempt income.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by the AO under section 14A for the assessment year 2010-2011. The assessee, engaged in share broking and trading, contested that no interest disallowance was required as their own funds were sufficient to cover the value of investments. The AO disallowed expenses under section 14A amounting to Rs. 43,66,222, including interest and administrative expenses. However, the AO did not establish a direct nexus between the disallowed amount and earning of exempt income. The assessee argued that their own funds were adequate to cover investments, citing a decision of the Bombay High Court in Reliance Utilities case.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, noting that the interest income exceeded interest expenditure, indicating no requirement for interest disallowance under section 14A. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions in the assessee's own case and emphasized that if no direct or indirect expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income, section 14A's apportionment principle did not apply. The Tribunal highlighted the need for a proximate cause for disallowance related to tax-exempt income, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. The Tribunal also cited the decision in the case of Paresh K. Shah v. DCIT, where it was held that no disallowance was warranted when the assessee's own funds exceeded the investments in question.

The Tribunal further referenced the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., supporting the view that no disallowance was necessary when the assessee's own funds were adequate for investments. Ultimately, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance made by the AO under section 14A, concluding that the assessee's own funds sufficiently covered the value of investments. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 17/02/2016.