Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 41 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.14A on interest - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that where an assessee possessed sufficient interest free funds of its own which were generated in the course of relevant financial year, apart from substantial shareholders' funds, presumption gets established that the investments in sister concerns were made by the assessee out of interest free funds and, therefore, no part of interest on borrowings can be disallowed on the basis that the investments were made out of interest bearing funds. Similar view has been taken in CIT vs. Tin Box Company [2002 (11) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT] holding that when the capital and interest free unsecured loan with the assessee far exceeded the interest free loan advanced to the sister concern, disallowance of part of interest out of total interest paid by the assessee to the bank was not justified. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT (LTU) VS. Reliance Industries Ltd.[2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT] has reiterated the same view. When we examine the amount of Investments at ₹ 39.94 crore as against the availability of Share Capital and Reserves at ₹ 397.86 crore, it becomes evident that the amount of such Investments is much less than the amount of shareholders fund. We, therefore, order to delete the disallowance of interest amounting to ₹ 45,16,437/-. Second component of disallowance of interest at half percent of average value of investments - AR did not raise any dispute as to the applicability of 0.5% towards disallowance on the average value of investments. It was, however, requested that only the investments which yielded exempt income should be considered for the purpose of calculation. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ACB India Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that the average value of investments, for the purposes of Rule 8D(2)(iii), should be confined to those securities in respect of which exempt income is earned and not the total investments. Similar view has been taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments (P) Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] - we set aside the impugned order to this extent and remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for recomputing the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only such investments in calculating the average value of investments, which yielded exempt income during the year. The assessee will be allowed hearing opportunity in such fresh proceedings. It is further made clear that while computing disallowance u/s.14A, the suo motu disallowance offered by the assessee, to the extent concerning with rule 8D(2)(iii), should be accordingly reduced. Deduction towards Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid u/s. 40(a)(ii) - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Sesa Goa Lt. Vs. JCIT [2020 (3) TMI 347 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in which it has been held that Education Cess is not disallowable expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ii) of the Act. Similar view has earlier been taken in Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. JCIT[2018 (10) TMI 589 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]. We, ergo, direct to allow deduction for such an amount after verification.
|