M/s. Kirloskar Integrated Technologies Pvt.Ltd, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 14(3), Pune

ITA 2/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8667 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2/PUN/2019 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Kirloskar Integrated Technologies Pvt. Ltd., 13A, Karve Road, Kothrud, Pune-411038 PAN : AAACK7299L .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 14(3), Pune ......प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14-02-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 18-02-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31-10-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2014-15. 2 ITA No.2/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 2. The assessee raised two grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing and executing projects based on bio energy and solar technologies. The ld. AR submits that the assessee earned dividend of Rs.100/- and the AO disallowed expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to an extent of Rs.3,16,488/-. He argued that the disallowance under Rule 8D for the purpose of Section 14A should not exceed the dividend income and placed on record the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 421 ITR 142 (Bom) and submitted the disallowance made by the AO which was confirmed by the CIT(A) is not maintainable and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to exempt income. The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 4. We find the AO discussed the issue at Para No. 5 wherein, we note that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs.100/- and claimed as exempt u/s. 10(34) of the Act. The AO asked the assessee to explain why expenses be disallowed as per Rule 8D of the Rules. In response, the assessee submits no borrowed funds were utilized in earning dividend income and investment made out of own share capital but the AO considering the same proceeded to disallow expenditure under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to an extent of Rs.3,16,488/- being 0.5% of average investment of 3 ITA No.2/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Rs.6,32,97,660/-. The CIT(A) was of the opinion, that the management has to weigh the option of making investments in various entities of the amount available to maximize the returns and the constant monitoring of the performance of these investments is required to shift the amounts from the non-performing companies, having opined the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO by holding the salaries of top management have to the apportioned to this activity. Coming to the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) vide its order dated 23-04-2019 while considering its own order in the case of HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. along with the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd., Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. and the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Pragati Krishna Gramin Bank answered the question in favour of the assessee limiting the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act to dividend income. In the present case, we find that the assessee earned only Rs.100/- as dividend income and the AO made disallowance of Rs.3,16,488/- which is evidentay exceeds the dividend income. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the disallowance made by the AO exceeding the dividend income. In the light of the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we deem it proper to hold the disallowance as confirmed by the CIT(A) is not maintainable and it is not justified. Therefore, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance for the purpose of Section 14A of the Act to the dividend income earned and the said disallowance shall not exceed the dividend income. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 4 ITA No.2/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 5. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18 th February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Dipak P. Ripote) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददनांक / Dated : 18 th February, 2022. रवि आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-9, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT-6, Pune 5. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ा फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्याधपत प्रधत// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ विजी सविि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune