2015 (12) TMI 1651 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii)- Held that - As the assessee-company has suo moto worked out the interest disallowance of borrowing which were subject matter of investment in shares which were generating exempt income and hence the working given by the assessee is done on the basis of Auditor s report of statutory auditor who carried out the work of audit. No qualifying has been made by the auditor while submitting Form 3CD report u/s. 44AB of the Act. Also as the assessee-company s own capital is much more than the investment made by the assessee-company in the shares/mutual funds which were generating exempt income and therefore disallowance was not correct considering the jurisdictional High Court decisions in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and also taking note of the facts available on record and also taking note of his predecessor CIT(A) s orders which have been referred by the assessee-company - Decided in favour of assessee Allowance of foreign travelling expenses of wife of Chairman of the assessee-company - Held that - CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee that Mrs. Patsy P. Mistry was a Director of the assessee-company and wife of the Chairman of the Company Mr. Pallonji S. Mistry travelled abroad. Mr. pallonji s. Mistry is 80 years as on 31.3.2008 when Mrs. Patsy P. Mistry Director of the accompanied him and considering the age of the Chairman of the assessee-company and also his medical necessity of health his wife accompanied him during his tour abroad. Learned CIT(A) was of correct view that same was completely justified and warranted to accompany the Chairman hence the journey undertaken by Mr. Patsy Mistry cannot be said to be unjustified and not for business purposes when the chairman of the company was so warranted for the assessee s business and operations. Learned CIT(A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer s finding and deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC - payments made after the due dates - Held that - The assessee-company has paid the contribution to PF and ESIC after the due date but within the grace period. Learned CIT(A) was rightly held that the payment made within the grace period by following the Judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT ). Therefore we are of the considered view that the findings of learned CIT(A) on this issue do not require any infirmity - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii)
2. Disallowance of foreign travel expenses
3. Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii)

The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount under section 14A as the assessee failed to prove the nexus between interest-free funds and investments generating exempt income. The CIT(A) deleted part of the disallowance based on the company's capital exceeding the investments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision citing relevant case law and the auditor's report supporting the assessee's position.

Issue 2: Disallowance of foreign travel expenses

The Assessing Officer disallowed foreign travel expenses as personal in nature, but the CIT(A) overturned this decision due to the wife of the company's Chairman accompanying him for business purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s reasoning, considering the circumstances and necessity for the wife to accompany the Chairman, thus justifying the expenses.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC

The Assessing Officer disallowed the contribution made after the due dates, but the CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee based on timely payments within the grace period. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), distinguishing the case cited by the Revenue and upholding the decision based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all three issues, emphasizing proper justifications, legal interpretations, and adherence to relevant case law.