Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1095 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- The perusal of the audited Balance-Sheet of the assessee for year ending 31st March, 2012 which is placed in Paper Book reveals that the availability of interest free funds in the form of Share Capital, Reserves and Surplus as on 31.03.2012 is in excess of ₹ 181 crore as against the closing investments considered by the AO at ₹ 131 crore meaning thereby that the availability of interest free funds to be more than the investments. We therefore relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] hold that no disallowance of interest expenses u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) of I.T. Rules is called for in the present case. Disallowance of indirect expenses u/s 14A r.w. 8D(2)(iii) - in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] has held that only those investments are to be considered while computing the average value of the investments which yield exempt income during the year for working out disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal has also been relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Quick Heal Technologies Ltd [2019 (3) TMI 699 - ITAT PUNE]. Before us, Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision in its support. We therefore relying on the aforesaid decisions restore the issue back to the file of AO to re-work the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of I.T. Rules in line with the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt Ltd. (supra) Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. 8D - A.Y. 2013-14 - HELD THAT:- Disallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) on account of interest expenses on account of availability of sufficient interest free funds and Rule 8D(2)(iii) with respect to indirect expenses from the investments from which no exempt income being earned respectively is concerned, in view of the submission of both the parties and the fact being similar to A.Y. 2012-13, we for the reasons stated hereinabove while deciding the issue in A.Y. 2012-13 and for similar reasons and directions, restore the issue back to the file of AO to recomputed the disallowance. Excluding the investments which are held as stock-in-trade for working out the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. 8D - HELD THAT:- In view of the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd., Vs. CIT [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] , we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT(A) as far as the disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering the shares held as stock-in-trade for working out the disallowance is concerned. However before us, none of the parties have placed any material on record to demonstrate the exempt income earned u/s 10(34) of the Act by the assessee from the shares which are held as “stock-in-trade”. In such a situation, since on the other aspect of Sec.14A of the Act, we are restoring the issue to the file of AO for determining the disallowance, on this aspect also (where the shares are held as stock-in-trade), the issue is restored to the file of AO
|