TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n used in section 92C(1), which could give leeway to the TPO to ascribe to a non specific method. Word “any”, is founded on the suffix, "of the following methods being the most appropriate method". Therefore, the ambit of the word “any” in section 92C(1) has been restricted within the precinct of the five specific methods. This gathers strength from the fact that even in the Rules, relevant Rule 10B provides with the similar wordings - issue cannot be restored to the TPO because the methods, as prescribed by the legislature are mandatory, not directory. When mandatory provision is either superseded or ignored, it straightaway affects the jurisdiction. It was a case of suo moto reference to the TPO and it is the case of the revenue authorities, to import the provisions of Chapter X. In this circumstance, since the TPO did not adhere to the prescribed methods consciously, another innings to rectify the mistake cannot be allowed, as the TPO infringed the relevant provision of the Income Tax Act and Rules - entire case both on legality and on facts, as developed by the AO/TPO/DRP were initiated on wrong footings and were void and without jurisdiction - Decided in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P) adjustment of Rs. 79,96,60,415/- computed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and sustained by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in the impugned order. 4. Ground no. 5 pertain to reimbursement of expenses, which also has TP adjustment, computed by the TPO and sustained by the DRP, amounting to Rs. 9,60,668/-. 5. Ground no. 6 pertains to computation of disallowance of Rs. 16,28,733/- under section 14A under domestic provisions. Grounds no. 1 to 4: 6. The facts as submitted by the AR and DR and discerned from the material placed on record, suggests that the assessee, i.e. Kodak India Private Ltd. sold its medical - imaging business to Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. for USD 13.543 million. Being domestic transaction, the assessee returned its income, disclosing the sale transaction as a normal domestic transition. On perusal of the documents as called for by the AO and submitted by the assessee, the AO came to the conclusion that the sale transaction of imaging business by the assessee to Carestream Health India Ltd. was pursuant to a larger sale transaction, on global basis, wherein, holding company of Kodak India (assessee) sold its imaging business to Onex Healthca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ak India (P) Ltd. (assessee) and Carestream Inc. has Indian subsidiary, Carestream Health India Private Ltd. Eastman Kodak Co. Onex Inc. Kodak India Private Ltd. (EKC holds 97.7% shares) Carestream Health India Private Ltd. (Carestream Inc. holds 99.9% shares) Eastman Kodak sells its health imaging, i.e. medical business to Carestream Inc. on global basis for USD 23.5 billion. Pursuant to this agreement, Kodak India sells its imaging, i.e. medical business to Carestream India which is:- Eastman Kodak Co. USA Sells/ imaging segment Onex Inc. (Now Carestream Inc.) Kodak India Private Ltd. Sells/ imaging segment Carestream India Private Ltd. 11. The Senior Counsel, explained that though the sale transaction was pursuant to the Global agreement between the two holding companies, but the transaction in question was between two domestic companies, where, neither of the two companies were AEs and since the transaction in question was done within India, there was no element of international transaction. Since neither of them were non residents, no jurisdiction could have been imparted on the TPO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te hereof, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement, Assignee hereby assumes and agrees to discharge or perform when due, the Assumed Liabilities of the Assignor. For greater certainty, the parties hereto confirm that the Assumed Liabilities do not include the Excluded Liabilities. 5. Transferred Employees. 6. Consideration. On the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Purchase Agreement, at the Closing, as consideration for all of the Transferred Assets covered by this Agreement, in addition to the assumption of the Assumed Liabilities by Assignee contemplated hereby, Assignee shall pay to the Assignor an aggregate amount in cash of US$ 13,543,332.5 in equivalent Indian Rupees ("Purchase Price") without deduction of any cost or charges other than those of the Assignee's bank. The Assignor agrees and confirms with the Assignee that the said consideration will be payable by the Assignee not later than 5th May, 2007." 13. In the submissions dated 26.09.2011 (APB 1165, at 1168), the Assessee clarified the contents of APA, "(b).... (c) Further, Eastman Kodak US ("Kodak US") decided globally to come out of Health Imaging bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erprises, and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to any one or more of such enterprises. "(2) A transaction entered into by an enterprise with a person other than an associated enterprise shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be a transaction entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement in relation to the relevant transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise, or the terms of the relevant transaction are determined in substance between such other person and the associated enterprise". submitted that as per the definition, transaction can be an international transaction if: Contracting parties are AEs Either the contracting party or both the AEs are non resident(s). Therefore, when admittedly both the contracting entities, neither being AE of each other, nor, being non resident, would not fall within the definition of international transaction. 16. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfluences the price at which the goods are exported. In such a case the transaction with the unrelated enterprise will also be subject to transfer pricing regulation." 18. Referring to section 92B(2), the Senior Counsel submitted that even to invoke the deeming provision, with regard to the international transaction and also to fall within Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, three conditions are necessary, i.e. a) there must be 2 AEs b) one of them must be a non resident c) there must be a sale of some property. 19. The Senior Counsel further submitted that when deeming fiction had to be tested, it must have a strict conduct and specifically in accordance with the context, which it is being factored. He, therefore, referred to the case of CIT vs C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar, reported in 83 ITR 170(SC) at 173, in the context of deemed dividend under section 2(6A)(e) now, under section 2(22)(e) "for certain purposes, the legislature has deemed such a loan as dividend. Hence section 2(6A)(e) must necessarily receive a strict construction". 20. He also referred to the case of CIT vs Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd., reported in 155 ITR 711 (SC) at pages 718 and 719, wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts legitimate field and will have to be confined to that purpose" 21. He, further, referred to the Special Bench case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. vs Dy Director of Income Tax (SB), reported in 16 ITR 116 (Trib), (reading from the headnote), he submitted, "Deeming provision must be confined for its purpose only not beyond the fiction". The Senior Counsel submitted that in the context of the instant appeal, to import the deeming provisions of section 92B(2), the context was to examine the transaction entered into by the assessee or the other party with the AE, for the purposes of subsection (1), i.e. international transaction. 22. The Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned transaction is a domestic transaction, wherein one Indian company takes over the ongoing business segment of another Indian company. 23. The Senior Counsel further submitted that even if the impugned transaction between the two Indian companies were a result of main agreement between the two holding companies, even then deeming fiction of section 92B(2) cannot be invoked, because, so far as the impugned transaction is concerned, neither of the non resident holding companies can be held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e separate legal character of the Indian enterprise should be overlooked, then it would mean that the such separate legal character of the assessee will be lost not for one transaction but for all practical purposes. In that case only the foreign entity will survive as a taxable unit even under the Act. Probably it is not the case of the Revenue also as it is the Indian entity which has been subjected to the present assessment" 24. The Senior Counsel submitted that under no case, the impugned transaction could be rendered as an international transaction, even if section 92B(2) were invoked. 25. Coming to the legality of the computation of ALP, the Senior Counsel submitted that the TPO and DRP have flouted the computation procedure. He submitted that ALP, in accordance with section 92C(1) could be determined in any of the following methods, i.e. a) comparable uncontrolled price method; b) resale price method; c) cost plus method; d) profit split method; e) transactional net margin method; f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board. and the most appropriate method shall be applied. The Senior Counsel submitted that in the case at hand, the TPO did not ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be eligible for TP regulations and hence no adjustment is required to be made. 29. After discerning the facts of the instant case, that the transaction entered into by the two Indian companies and such a transaction could not be held to be international transaction, the Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by coordinate Bench at Hyderabad in the case of Swarnandhra IJMII Integrated Township Development Company Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, in ITA no. 2072/Hyd/2011, wherein there was a transaction between an Indian enterprise with an intermediary company which had an AE in a foreign country. After examining the entire facts, the coordinate Bench came to the conclusion that the transaction between Indian enterprise and Intermediary company would not be an international transaction even if the deeming provision of section 92B(2) is imported, as unrelated intermediary was not a non resident, and that the unrelated intermediary being an Indian entity. 30. The Senior Counsel, therefore, concluded that in the present set of circumstance, since the transaction was between two domestic companies, and there being transaction with neither of the two company's being AEs, the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show any transfer of intangibles, like goodwill, because the transfer pertained to the ongoing imaging business segment of the assessee. The DR referring to the accounts of the assessee submitted that goodwill does not appear anywhere, which, according to him were an integral part of the transaction. 34. The DR in his synopsis explained through diagrammatic illustrations how there existed AEs of both the contracting entities, who were non residents and how the transaction between the two foreign companies had influenced the impugned transaction between the assessee and the unrelated other entity or a non AE. The DR further drew the diagram to explain the transaction related in Swarnandhra (supra), rendered by coordinate Bench at Hyderabad and made a distinction that there was no prior agreement in that case and hence being distinguishable on facts, cannot be relied upon. 35. The DR further argued that legally also, the case of Swarnandhra could not be relied upon because the finding is contrary to, section 92B(2), because the deeming provision arises only when two enterprises are not AEs or deemed AEs and that it has to be read independently and not as an extension of 92B(1). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in some small measure that Parliament intended that sub-section to apply only to cases where the consideration in respect of the transfer is understated by the assessee. It is not altogether without significance that the provision in sub-section (2) was enacted by Parliament not as a separate section, but as part of section 52 which, as it originally stood, dealt only with cases of under- statement of consideration. If Parliament intended sub-section (2) to cover all cases where the condition of 15% difference is satisfied, irrespective of whether there is understatement of consideration or not, it is reasonable to assume that Parliament would have enacted that provision as a separate section and not pitchforked it into section 52 with a total stranger under an inappropriate marginal note. Moreover, there is inherent evidence in sub-section (2) which suggests that the thrust of that sub-section is directed against cases of understatement of consideration. The crucial and important words in sub-section (2) are: "the full value of the consideration declared by the assessee". The word "declared" is very eloquent and revealing. It clearly indicates that the focus of sub-section (2) i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terprise in the instant contracting domestic companies. 42. We have heard both the parties at length, and have perused the orders of the revenue authorities and papers placed before the revenue authorities. We find that the assessee has filed APA, entered between Eastman Kodak Company and Onex Healthcare Holdings Inc., dated 09.01.2007 (APB 1 to 1090), (holding companies of the Indian subsidiaries, i.e. Kodak India and Carestream India). 43. It is undisputed that the transaction involve two domestic companies, who are individual and independent subsidiaries of their own and independent holding companies. This is also not in dispute that neither of the holding companies could be called the AE of the other contracting party. This is also not in dispute that, there is any transaction, involving a non resident company. 44. The case as developed by the TPO/DRP and the DR is that despite the fact that there is no foreign entity involved with an AE who is a non-resident but provisions of section 92B(2) can deem a transaction to be an international transaction and the TP provisions could consequentially be applied, has to examined by examining the definitions of:- Associated Enterp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on made by the DR, that the section talks of "a transaction" and not "an international transaction", hence the expression in sub section (1) has to be read independently in sub section (2), cannot be accepted. We are dealing in Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the heading of the relevant provisions, which is being examined fall within the heading "Meaning of International Transaction" and even in the relevant sub section, i.e. 92B(2), prescribes, "......the transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise, ....". In our opinion, first, there has to be an "AE", with whom there exists an international transaction, only then it could be examined as to whether the international transaction with the "such other person" exists or not. 48. In the instant case there are two foreign companies and two Indian domestic companies. As admitted by both the sides the two foreign companies have independent agreement and the Indian domestic companies have independent agreement for sale of a segment of business. 49. Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, 1961, subscribes the computation of income from international transaction having regard to arm's length price. Section 92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apital gains in case of sale of health imaging business to Carestream India. The certificate covers the valuation of health imaging business. Hence, Kodak India, on its independent capacity has valued the business and sold to the third party. Form 3CEA is attached as per Annexure 1. Hence considering the above points, your goodself will agree that the sale of healthcare business is a domestic transaction of Kodak India." 51. When we peruse the various recitals of the APA between Eastman Kodak Co. and Onex Healthcare Holdings Inc., we find at (APB 11), the interpretations of :- "Affiliate" means, with respect to any Person, any Person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, such other Person as of the date on which, or at any time during the period for which, the determination of affiliation is being made. For the purposes of this definition, the term "control" (including the correlative meanings of the terms "controlled by" and "under common control with"), as used with respect to any Person, means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management policies of such Person, whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of this Agreement and the Closing that would cause the representation and warranty contained in section 4.11 to be inaccurate (assuming that such representation and warranty were made on the date of such contract or transaction and is read without giving effect to the words "to the knowledge of the Buyer" contained therein), and in either case entry into such transaction or contract materially delays or prevents the consummation of the Transaction under any antitrust, competition or trade regulation or law, Buyer agrees to, and to cause all of its Affiliates (excluding any Affiliate that controls Onex Corporation and any Affiliate, other than Onex Corporation, that has outstanding publicly-traded equity securities and the Subsidiaries of such Affiliates) to take any and all steps necessary to avoid or eliminate each and every impediment under any antitrust, competition or trade regulation Law that may be asserted as a result of such breach, so as to enable the parties hereto to close the Transaction as promptly as possible, including proposing, negotiating, committing to and effecting, by consent decree, hold separate orders, or otherwise, the sale, divestiture or deposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an undisputed fact by the revenue authorities that the funds received as sale consideration were entirely received by the assessee company. This fact, though extracted by the TPO in his order, has not been rebutted by him, along with other clauses of APA (as reproduced in pre paras). If we proceed on the presumption, as founded by the AO/TPO/DR that the instant transaction had a positive economic behavior by the foreign holding companies and therefore, the instant transaction should be held to be bad and sham (as the TPO talks about lifting the corporate veil), then, in that case, the instant transaction could never have taken place. In that scenario, the global transaction shall only survive, without any tax implications under domestic laws. 54. This, we are sure, could never have been the intention of the revenue authorities. 55. When we examine the issue from the point of view of the decision of Swarnandhar (supra), we find that, in that case, the agreement was between the Indian PSU and the Indian subsidiary of two non resident companies, which become one company (as per the order of the Hyderabad ITAT and as per the synopsis submitted by the DR). The assessee was an off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section (1)". As observed by their Lordships, in the case of K.P. Varghese (supra), "the Parliament would have enacted that provision as a separate section and not pitchforked it into section 52 with a total stranger under an appropriate marginal note". The similar course could have been adopted by the legislature to place section 92B(2), independently, not under the heading of international transaction. Another important observation has to be made in this context is that the legislatures committed the deeming provision alongside section 92B(1) by using the expression, "for the purposes of sub-section (1)". 60. In our opinion, as observed by their Lordships, 92B(2) assumes same significance, i.e. to define international transaction as defined under section 92B(1), to get to the true intent...", i.e. what is an international transaction. 61. This abundantly makes it clear that to come within the purview of section 92(1), 92A(1) the transaction must go through the needle hole definition provided in section 92B(1). This, transaction, cannot be presumed to be international transaction, even when the revenue authorities have tried to include it as the deemed transactions, as the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dications in the scheme of the Act to show that the expression "shall" used in Sections 234A, 234B and 234C is used by the Legislature deliberately and it has not left any scope for interpreting the said expression as "may". 66. By the use of the word "shall", for computing the ALP in one of the following methods, the legislature has cast an embargo that no seventh method could be adopted by the TPO for computing the ALP. Even the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of LG Electronics India Private Limited, (supra), in paras 22.10 and 22.11, pages 128 and 129, observes, "As regards the contention that methods are tools for determining the ALP, we find that there is dispute that there is no dispute the main purpose of Chapter X is to determine the ALP of an international transaction, but such determination can be done only by way of the methods specified by the statute. When the legislature has specifically enshrined a provision under section 92C requiring the computation of ALP by any of the prescribed methods, it does not fall in the realm of the TPO or for that matter any other authority to breach such mandate and apply or direct to apply any other method. Going by the dicta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was most reasonable, because, according to him, in the transfer of business of imaging segment, mean of last four years Gross Profit came at 14%, which in monetary terms came to Rs. 4.49 crores, as against which, the assessee had declared the GP at 5.98 crores, which according to us is quite reasonable and should not be disturbed. 72. On these observations, in our opinion the entire case both on legality and on facts, as developed by the AO/TPO/DRP were initiated on wrong footings and were void and without jurisdiction. 73. We, therefore, allow grounds no. 1, 2, 3 4, as filed by the assessee. 74. Ground no. 5 pertains to TP adjustment of Rs. 9,60,668/- in respect of expenses incurred by the appellant on behalf of its AE. 75. The facts are that the assessee had incurred certain expenses on behalf of its AE amounting to Rs. 1,88,45,431/-. As the expenses were to be reimbursed to the assessee, the receipts on account of reimbursement was recovered on cost plus 10% mark up on the expenses pertaining to employee, advertisements, award sponsorship. 76. The TOP/AO proposed the markup @ 12.5% and made an adjustment accordingly. 77. Before the DRP assessee pleaded that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the same as exempt. 89. On being asked as to why the provisions of section 14A be not applied, the assessee vide submissions dated 26.08.2011 submitted that it has not attributed any expense against the exempt income. Since it is case of debt free company, no interest could be attributable towards the investments made by it from its own funds, from which it has generated the impugned exempt income, and hence, no disallowance is called for. 90. The AO, rejected the contention of the assessee and held, "In this regard, the decision of Special Bench, ITAT, Mumbai in ITA no. 8057/Mum/03 dated 20.10.2008 in the case of M/s Daga Capital Management P Ltd and Others is relevant. In this case, it has been held that "We do not have an iota of doubt in our mind that the intention behind using the expression "in relation to" in section 14A is to encompass not only the direct but also the indirect expenditure which has any relation to the exempt income. We, therefore, hold that the direct and indirect expenses are disallowable under section 14A, which have any relation with the income not chargeable to tax under the Act". With this ruling the Special Bench has made it crystal clear tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "Assessee has also submitted alternative working of the disallowance. Reliance was on the following decisions:- Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. ITA no.8057/M/03 (Mum.)(SB) Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 328 ITR 81 (Bom.) GIC Ltd. 254 ITR 203 (Bom.) Central Bank of India 264 ITR 522 (Bom.) Bombay High Court in GIC Ltd. 203 ITR 203 6.3 Discussion and decision:- We have considered the AO's order and assessee's submissions. The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case dl Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. has set the controversy on applicability of Rule 8D at rest. Accordingly, once the AO does not accept the assessee's claim of no expenditure towards exempt income or its computation of disallowance in terms of Rule 8D, the Rule has to be mandatorily applied. In this case, the AO has found the assessee's claim of no expenditure unacceptable and accordingly, Rule 80 has mandatorily come into play. The disallowance is not arbitrary as it is backed up by AO's finding that some expenditure has been incurred. He has also considered the assessee's version and has found it untenable. looking into th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 2008-09) to the decision, and have examined the words that need reference in the section are "if AO having regard to the accounts of assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim...", means that before going to the computation, AO has to cross the barrier of the satisfaction with the correctness of the claim, then AO can be permitted to straightaway apply the computation under Rule 8D. In this case, the coordinate Bench was dealing with the objection taken by the AO on account of administrative expenses, allocated by the assessee against the investment of Rs. 202,25,40,632/-. This was the case where the AO did not refer to the accounts, but he did not give reasons and speaking order, for making the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D. 98. Thus the issue in this appeal is with reference to invoking of provisions of section 14A(2) and Rule 8D. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court while upholding the constitutional validity of the section 14A and Rule 8D has this to observe with reference to sub section 2 3 of section 14A: "Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 14A were inserted by an amendment brought about by the Finance Act of 2006 with effect f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirement of the AO embarking upon a determination of the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income would be triggered only if the AO returns a finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure. Therefore, the condition precedent for the AO entering upon a determination of the amount of the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income is that the AO must record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure. Sub-section (3) is nothing but an offshoot of sub-section (2) of Section 14A. Sub-section (3) applies to cases where the assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act. In other words, sub-section (2) deals with cases where the assessee specifies a positive amount of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the said Act and sub-section (3) applies to cases where the assessee asserts that no expenditure had been incurred in relation to exempt income. In both cases, the AO, if satisfied with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the AO is required to determine the amount of expenditure in relation to income not includable in total income in the manner indicated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D of the said Rules. 31. It is, therefore, clear that determination of the amount of expenditure in relation to exempt income under Rule 8D would only come into play when the AO rejects the claim of the assessee in this regard. If one examines sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D, we find that the method for determining the expenditure in relation to exempt income has three components. The first component being the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of the total income. The second component being computed on the basis of the formula given therein in a case where the assessee incurs expenditure by way of interest which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt. The formula essentially apportions the amount of expenditure by way of interest [other than the amount of interest included in clause (i)] incurred during the previous year in the ratio of the average value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, to the average of the to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Prior to that, the assessing was free to adopt any reasonable and acceptable method. 100. The Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Hero Cycles Ltd 323 ITR 518 (P H) has also held that disallowance under section 14A could not stand where it was found that for earning exempted income, no expenditure has been incurred. 101. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Justice Sam P Bharucha vs Addl. CIT in ITA No. 3889/Mum/2011 dated 25.07.2012 has analyzed similar issue and came to the following conclusion:- "5 We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. Section 14A has within it implicit notion of apportionment in the cases where the expenditure is incurred for the composite/indivisible activities in which taxable and non-taxable income is received. But when it is possible to determine the actual expenditure in relation to the exempt income or when no expenditure has been incurred in relation to the exempt income, then principle of apportionment embedded in section 14 A has no application. The objective of section 14 A is not allowing to reduce tax payable on the normal exempt income by debiting the expenditure incurred to ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n any finding that any of the expenditure incurred and claimed by the assessee is attributable for earning the exempt income. In other words when the AO has not pointed out that certain expenditure is not incurred for earning the professional income; but are incurred in relation to dividend income or such expenditure is incurred for inseparable and indivisible activities comprising professional as well as the activities on which is exempt income has been earned by the assessee, then in the absence of any such instance of expenditure, finding of AO or any material to show that the expenditure incurred and claimed by the assessee against the taxable income has any relation for earning the exempt income, the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied. 102. Similar views were also expressed by the Coordinate Benches in the case of Relaxo Footwears Ltd, vs Addl. CIT (2012) 50 SOT 102 and Priya Exhibitors (P) Ltd vs ACIT (2012) 54 SOT 356. In the case of Relaxo Footwears Ltd, it was held as under: "The AO should have considered the claim of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to earning the exempt income. If the claim was not found to be in consonance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held that "the disallowance as not arbitrary, and that some expenditure has obviously been incurred to manage and monitor the investments, yielding the dividend income". The observation, "that some expenditure has obviously been incurred to manage and monitor..." made by the DRP, is per se, hypothetical. 106. In our opinion, Rule 8D is not automatic, it is for the AO to examine, at the outset, the correctness of the claim of the assessee, whether he has incurred any expenditure or not and has to give a definite finding, as to how the claim of the assessee is unacceptable. If, on examination, it is found that such expenditure is lower than the disallowance, as computed under Rule 8D, then actual expenditure, as estimated by the AO would have to be disallowed. If, on the other hand, the assessee is able to substantiate on facts, that the exempt income does not bear any cost/expenditure, in such cases, disallowance under section 14A, may become invalid. 107. As observed above, Rule 8D cannot be invoked directly and mechanically, i.e., without giving a detailed and speaking reasons. Bald statement, made by the AO that he has referred to the accounts, does not give him an autom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
