Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1542 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - suo-moto disallowance by assessee - as per AO investment in shares for the purpose of earning dividend income and long term capital gains which are exempt and not chargeable to tax under the Act - HELD THAT:- Assessee has suo moto disallowed ₹ 25,817/- u/s 14A of the Act for earning tax free dividend income of ₹ 78,037/-. It is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction in so far as correctness or otherwise of the suo moto disallowance of ₹ 25,819/- made by the assessee is concerned. There is also no finding that the assessee has used interest bearing funds for making the investment in shares. The Revenue has failed to establish the nexus between the borrowed funds and the investment in shares. No satisfaction being recorded by the AO and considering the suo moto disallowance qua the dividend income we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income of ₹ 78,037/-. Loss on sale of finance receivables/securitization - Debt recovery agent - assessee entered into an assignment agreement with Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd [STFCL] for outright sale of each of these receivables for an agreed consideration and in terms of the above arrangement, all rights, title and interest with respect to these loan facilities were transferred to STFCL without any recourse to the assessee. The aggregate book value of loans is at ₹ 10,11,71,94,000/- after adjusting the sale consideration of ₹ 9,08,29,87,000/- received from STFCL and resultant loss at ₹ 103,42,07,000/- has been claimed as expenses in the Profit and Loss Account. HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the assessee has lent money to around 45000 borrowers who gave security of vehicles in the form of hypothecation to the assessee. In this line of trade, the lender takes post dated cheques from the borrowers in advance. Since on the date of sale agreement executed with STFCL the assessee was holding post dated cheques of the borrower, therefore, for the period to which post dated cheques were with the assessee, the assessee collected installments for and on behalf of STFCL and after retaining the commission at 1.75%, the assessee remitted the amount to STFCL. The assessee acted as collection agent of STFCL. In so far as hypothecation of vehicle is concerned, in our understanding, the vehicles are hypothecated only as security against loan given. Hypothecation of around 45000 vehicles to be transferred in the name of STFCL would take a substantial period of time and moreover, it is for STFCL to get hypothecation transferred in its name, the assessee cannot be held liable after sale of receivables to STFCL. After addressing to the objection of the AO/DRP/DR, we are of the considered opinion that if the Revenue is objecting to the appointment of the assessee as Debt Recovery Agent, then, principally the revenue has accepted that the transfer of loan has taken place. Further, when the Revenue is objecting to indemnity of 20%, then also the revenue is accepting that actual transfer has taken place. In the light of the sale agreement and various relevant clauses discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that transaction has taken place during the year under consideration and loss has crystallized during the year under consideration and the assessee is entitled for claim of loss of ₹ 103.87 crores in the year itself. We, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 104.87 crores. TP Adjustment - international transactions entered into by the assessee revealed that it was making payments for certain Intra Group services [IGS] which had been bench marked under TNMM - HELD THAT:- Dispute has to be given a fresh look by the TPO in the light of several documentary evidences brought in support of the IGS fee paid by the assessee. We, accordingly, remit the matter back to the file of the TPO/Assessing Officer with the direction to consider the issue afresh in light of the decision of the co-ordinate bench. Ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes. No interest charged on credits to its AEs - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the TPO has solely based his findings on the retrospective amendment to section 92B. We are of the opinion that when the impugned T P study report was furnished by the assessee as per the then applicable provision, outstanding receivables were not considered as international transaction. In our humble opinion, a party cannot be called upon to perform an impossible act i,e., to comply with a provision not in force at the relevant time but introduced later by retrospective amendment. We draw support from the judgment in the case of NGC Networks [India] Pvt Ltd [2018 (5) TMI 1148 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein followed the view taken by it in CIT Vs. Cello Plast [2012 (8) TMI 527 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the court has applied the legal maxim Lex non cogit impossibilia [law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. Though the TPO has computed the interest by observing that substantial amount of outstanding receivables from the AEs remained outstanding period for a prolonged period. However, no such substantial amount has been mentioned nor the delay considered as delay for a prolonged period has been mentioned. On the contrary, we find force in the contention of the ld. AR. Exhibit 42 of the paper book under the head ‘Service Income Receivable’. Since the facts are not coming out from the orders of the authorities below, we deem it fit to restore this issue to the file of the TPO. The TPO is directed to furnish details of substantial amount which, according to him, has been outstanding for a prolonged period. Application filed u/s 155(4) - improper credit of tax deducted at source - HELD THAT:- We direct the Assessing Officer to examine the matter afresh in light of the TDS details furnished by the assessee in its original return, revised return and application filed u/s 155(4) of the Act. TPO is further directed to verify whether any refund was allowed to the assessee to justify the withdrawal of interest u/s 244A of the Act and levy of interest u/s 234D. The TPO is directed to charge such interest as per provisions of law and after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Miscellaneous grounds are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
|