Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 141 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A - Assessee reported dividend income as exempted under section 10(34) of the Act and made sumo disallowance against the said exempt income - HELD THAT:- In view of decision MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] operation of the Rule 8D of the ‘Rules’, the action of the Assessing Officer of invoking Rule 8D of Income-tax Rules in the year under consideration (i.e. assessment year 2007-08), is not justified. Expenditure on assets which may yield exempt income as well as taxable income, need to be apportioned towards both the exempted and non-exempted income. Certain interest expenditure towards investment in mutual fund clearly needs to be disallowed, which the assessee has not considered in its suo-motu disallowance. No such breakup of proportionate expenses towards exempted and non-exempted income from investment in mutual funds has been provided either lower authorities or before us. In absence of any such working provided by the assessee, it is not possible for us to quantify the proportionate disallowance out of the interest expenditure incurred for investment in Mutual funds. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investment Company Private Limited [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has restricted the disallowance under section 14A to the extent of the exempted income. Following the finding above CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in the case of the assessee to the extent of excepted income. Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - CIT- A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that assessee is not a shareholder in RSL from which it has obtained a loan. The addition of deemed dividend can be made only in the hand of the shareholders and not otherwise. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), where he has followed binding precedent of ANKITECH PVT LTD. & OTHERS [2011 (5) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, the finding of the Learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is upheld. The ground of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. Disallowance of expenses on ‘Stock Appreciation Right (SAR)’ written off - HELD THAT:- The issue-in-dispute of SAR expenses as revenue in nature is covered in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the decisions of own case [2017 (5) TMI 59 - ITAT DELHI] and M/S. RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 1529 - DELHI HIGH COURT]we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and delete the addition of ₹ 50,29,087/- on the issue. The grounds of the appeal are accordingly allowed. Computation of disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D - HELD THAT:- Before the Ld AO, the assessee made disallowance according to its own method of disallowance , which was not accepted by the Ld AO and invoked the Rule 8D of the Rules. In our opinion, when he rejected the disallowance computed by the assessee, that in itself is dissatisfaction with the claim of the assessee of disallowance. It is not necessary that such dissatisfaction has to be recorded in explicit words, when the it is evident from the implied action of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we dismiss the plea of the assessee that dissatisfaction was not recorded by the Assessing Officer while invoking the Rule 8D of Rules.Accordingly, we reject the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). As far as grounds of Revenue is concerned, in our opinion, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court is in accordance with law and we do not find any error in the same. Accordingly, we also reject the grounds raised by the Revenue challenging the disallowance under section 14A of the Act deleted by Ld CIT(A). Disallowance on account of provision for expenses - HELD THAT:- Provisions of stock appreciation right (SAR) for which separate addition was also made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted in view of the issue covered in the favour of the assessee by the decision of the Coordinate bench of the Tribunal in and the Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, in our opinion making further addition on the ground of unascertained liability is not justified. Provision made for leave travel allowance -The assessee has not provided any justification as how the estimate of ₹ 45,48,172/- was made for leave travel allowance of the employees, whereas actually amount paid to the employees was only of the ₹ 24,24,401/-. In view of the facts, we agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in disallowing the excess provision made by the assessee. Similarly, we agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of the provision for medical reimbursement and other allowances. The alternative request of the assessee to delete the addition on the ground that the assessee has offered the same for tax in subsequent assessment year, is also rejected because the issue in dispute is to be decided in accordance with law and not according to the choice of the assessee when he offer for tax. However, the assessee is at liberty to make request for rectification in the subsequent assessment year in accordance with law. The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed and the additional ground No.4 of the appeal of the assessee is also dismissed.
|