2025 (6) TMI 157 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) claimed in the return but adjusted and disallowed u/s. 143(1) in appeal against order u/s. 143(3) - first contention raised on behalf of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in entertaining the grounds raised by the Assessee challenging the rejection of claim of deduction while processing return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act in an appeal preferred against the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT - Neither the Assessment Order nor the Computation Sheet attribute the denial of deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Act to the variation made while processing returned of income under Section 143(1) of the Act. The starting point for computation of income is not the income determined as per Intimation Order dated 06/02/2020 issued under Section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly we reject the contention of the Revenue that the ground raised by the Assessee challenging the denial of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act does not arise from the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The natural corollary being that the defense available to the Assessee regarding limited scope of adjustment u/s 143(1) of the Act would not be available to the Assessee and as a result the Assessee would not be able to contend that the addition/disallowance made is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of the Act. We accept the contention of the Assessee that deduction u/s 80IA of the Act is to be allowed from the Gross Total Income and the same cannot be restricted to income computed under the head Profits Gains of Business or Profession . Further the scope of Section 80IA(5) of the Act is restricted to the determination of quantum of deduction by treating the eligible business as the only source of income. We also reject the contention of the Revenue that in the present case the income of the eligible undertaking does not form part of Gross Total Income for the simple reason in case the profits from the eligible business are excluded from the computation of Gross Total Income the loss under the head Profits Gains of Business or Profession would be wider and the same shall stand increased by the amount of profits of the eligible undertaking. As a result the Gross Total Income shall stand reduced by the said amount on account of set off of such increased losses from Profits Gains of Business or Profession with the Capital Gains. As pointed by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee during the course of hearing the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80IA of the Act after verification of the claim. Disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) - Assessee had made suo-moto disallowance taking into consideration the investment which had yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year - HELD THAT - We find that the issue under consideration is no longer res integra. We note that in the case of Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. 2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT has rejected the contention of the Revenue that amendments to Section 14A introduced by the Finance Act 2022 shall have retrospective effect. Identical view has been taken in the case of Bajaj Capital Ventures (P.) Ltd. 2022 (7) TMI 23 - ITAT MUMBAI Denial of credit of Dividend Distribution Tax paid and the consequential levy of interest and raising of demand - HELD THAT - In the present case the Assessee was not claiming the benefit of low tax rate prescribed under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and was merely claiming the credit of Dividend Distribution Taxes paid. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case we direct the AO to grant credit of Dividend Distribution Tax after verification of Challan and Form 26AS. AO is directed to re-compute the applicable. interest/demand if any accordingly. In terms of the aforesaid Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee in the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

The core legal issues considered by the Tribunal pertain to the following:

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") which was disallowed in the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act but not specifically appealed against by the Assessee, and whether such deduction can be claimed despite the Assessee having a loss under the head 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession'.

2. Whether the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, relating to expenses incurred in relation to exempt income, was correctly deleted by the CIT(A), including the treatment of investments in growth option mutual funds and strategic investments in group companies.

3. Whether the denial of credit for Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the Assessee and consequential levy of interest was justified.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Deduction under Section 80IA of the Act

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 80IA provides deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from eligible industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development. Sub-section (1) allows deduction equal to 100% of such profits for ten consecutive years, provided the gross total income includes such profits. Sub-section (5) mandates computation of profits as if the eligible business were the only source of income for determining the quantum of deduction. Section 80AB clarifies that deductions under Chapter VI-A are to be made with reference to income included in gross total income. The Supreme Court in Synco Industries Ltd. held that if gross total income is nil after setting off losses, no deduction under Chapter VI-A is allowable. Conversely, a more recent Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Energy Ltd. clarified that deduction under Section 80IA is allowable from gross total income and is not restricted solely to business income.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the facts that the Assessee had declared taxable income of INR 6,89,82,370 after claiming deduction of INR 1,57,73,420 under Section 80IA. The deduction was disallowed during processing under Section 143(1), but the Assessee did not file a separate appeal against that intimation and raised the issue in appeal against the assessment order under Section 143(3). The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in entertaining this ground and that deduction was not allowable as the Assessee had a net loss under business income head. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that the CIT(A) lacked jurisdiction to entertain the ground, holding that the denial of deduction was reflected in the assessment order and computation sheet, and thus arose from the assessment order under Section 143(3).

On merits, the Tribunal distinguished the Synco Industries Ltd. judgment, noting that in the present case the Assessee had positive gross total income after setting off losses and profits from various businesses, including the eligible undertaking. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's later ruling in Reliance Energy Ltd. which held that deduction under Section 80IA is to be allowed from gross total income and that sub-section (5) only governs the quantum of deduction by treating the eligible business as the sole source of income. The Tribunal emphasized that the deduction is not limited to the business income head alone and that the eligible business profits do form part of the gross total income. Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the deduction after verification.

Key Findings: The denial of deduction under Section 80IA in the intimation under Section 143(1) merged into the assessment order under Section 143(3), and the Assessee was entitled to raise the issue in appeal against the assessment order. The deduction under Section 80IA is allowable against gross total income, not restricted to business income alone, provided the gross total income is positive. The quantum of deduction is computed treating the eligible business as the only source of income, but the final allowance is from gross total income.

Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on the Synco Industries Ltd. judgment and procedural objections regarding the scope of appeal, while the Assessee relied on the recent Supreme Court ruling in Reliance Energy Ltd. and procedural principles allowing merger of orders and appeals.

Conclusion: Grounds 1 and 2 raised by the Revenue were dismissed; the CIT(A)'s directions to allow deduction under Section 80IA after verification were upheld.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2) of the IT Rules

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 14A provides for disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of total income (exempt income). Rule 8D prescribes a method for computing such disallowance. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. held that only investments yielding exempt income during the relevant previous year should be considered for computing average investment for disallowance under Section 14A. The Delhi High Court in Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. held that amendments to Section 14A by Finance Act 2022 are clarificatory and not retrospective, and do not affect prior assessments.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer increased the disallowance under Section 14A from the Assessee's suo-moto disallowance of INR 46,67,450 to INR 83,93,835, including investments in growth option mutual funds and strategic investments in group companies. The CIT(A) deleted the additional disallowance, relying on the Tribunal's Special Bench decision in Vireet Investment and other judicial precedents, holding that only investments yielding exempt income are relevant for disallowance computation. The CIT(A) also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be applied while computing book profits under Section 115JB (Minimum Alternate Tax). The Revenue contended that the amendments to Section 14A by Finance Act 2022 should be applied retrospectively, requiring inclusion of all investments regardless of yield of exempt income, but the Tribunal rejected this, relying on authoritative judicial decisions.

Key Findings: The CIT(A)'s deletion of the additional disallowance under Section 14A was proper and consistent with judicial precedents. The Assessee's exclusion of growth option mutual funds and strategic investments from the computation of disallowance was justified. The amendments to Section 14A by Finance Act 2022 do not have retrospective effect.

Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued for a broader scope of disallowance under Section 14A including all investments, relying on the Finance Act 2022 amendments. The Assessee relied on established precedents limiting disallowance to investments yielding exempt income.

Conclusion: Grounds 3 and 4 of the Revenue's appeal were dismissed; the Assessee's Cross Objections supporting deletion of disallowance under Section 14A were allowed.

3. Credit for Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) and Levy of Interest

Legal Framework: Credit for taxes paid, including DDT, is governed by the provisions of the Act, and proper credit must be given if tax payment is established by valid challans and disclosures. Interest under Section 115P is levied for non-payment or short payment of DDT.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessee produced challans evidencing payment of DDT amounting to INR 46,14,400 on 07/11/2017. The Assessing Officer denied credit for this amount and levied interest. The CIT(A) rejected the Assessee's claim relying on a Special Bench decision involving different facts. The Tribunal found that the Assessee was not claiming treaty benefits but merely credit for taxes paid. Accordingly, it directed the Assessing Officer to verify the challans and Form 26AS and grant credit for the DDT paid, recomputing interest and demand accordingly.

Key Findings: The Assessee was entitled to credit for DDT paid as evidenced by valid challans. The denial of credit and consequent interest levy was erroneous.

Competing Arguments: The CIT(A) relied on precedents involving treaty benefits; the Assessee relied on documentary proof of DDT payment and entitlement to credit.

Conclusion: The Assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed for statistical purposes, directing reassessment of credit and interest.

Significant Holdings

On the issue of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act, the Tribunal preserved the following crucial legal reasoning from the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Energy Ltd.:

"The essential ingredients of Section 80-IA(1) are that the gross total income of an assessee should include profits and gains derived by an undertaking from eligible business; the assessee is entitled to deduction of 100% of such profits; and such deduction is allowed in computing total income. The quantum of deduction is computed treating the eligible business as the only source of income (Section 80-IA(5)), but the deduction is allowed from gross total income, not limited to business income alone."

Further, the Tribunal emphasized:

"The scope of sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA is limited to determination of quantum of deduction by treating the eligible business as the only source of income. It cannot be pressed into service to restrict the deduction under sub-section (1) only to business income."

On Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal held:

"Only those investments yielding exempt income during the relevant previous year shall be taken into consideration for computing average value of investments under Rule 8D. The amendments made by Finance Act 2022 are clarificatory and do not apply retrospectively."

On credit of Dividend Distribution Tax, the Tribunal directed:

"Credit of Dividend Distribution Tax paid must be granted upon verification of challans and Form 26AS. Denial of credit and levy of interest without proper consideration is erroneous."