Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0259 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
11-01-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
PartlyAllowed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
03-01-2017
Judgement Text
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘ए’ यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी वी. द ु गा राव, या यक सद य एवं ी जी. मंज ु नाथ, लेखा सद य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I . T. A. No s. 2 3 & 2 4/ C hn y/ 2 0 1 7 ( नधा रणवष / A ss e ss m en t Yea r s : 20 1 0 - 1 1 & 2 0 11 - 1 2) M/s. Robust Hotels P.Ltd. 365, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. V s The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-5(4), Chennai-600 034. P AN: A A DC R 5 4 1 8 B (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. AR V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT स ु नवाईक तार ख/D a t e o f h e a r i n g : 02.11.2021 घोषणाक तार ख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 12. 01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate, but identical orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, both dated 30.09.2016 and pertain to assessment years 2010-11 & 2011- 12. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off, by this consolidated order. 2 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 2. The assessee has more or less raised common grounds of appeal for both assessment years, therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed for assessment year 2010-11 are reproduced as under:- “1. The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai dated 30.09.2016 in l.T.A.No.07/2013-14/CIT(A)-3 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of proportionate/ interest expenses aggregating to Rs.3,93,87,137/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Acton the ground of diversion of interest bearing funds to its parent company M/s Forex Finance P Ltd. from the pre-operative expenses which was part balance sheet without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the presumption of the diversion of interest bearing funds diverted for non business purpose was wholly unjustified and ought to have appreciated that the financial statement as well as the purpose of the funds placed for the use of the parent company were not adjudicated thereby vitiating the wrong disallowance made. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the distinction between the setting up of the business and the commencement of the business operations was not noticed and ought to have appreciated that the presumption of absence of income under the head ‘business’ was wholly unjustified and moreover not relevant for the purpose of considering the claim of interest expenses charged. 5. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in page 7 of the appellate order for the Assessment Year 2011-12 in I.T.A. No.45/2014-15 dated 30.09.2016 mechanically without assigning proper reasons and justification. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event having not examined the accounting treatment, the presumption of deduction claimed for interest expenses was 3 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 wholly unjustified thereby vitiating the sustenance of the wrong disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of payments made to the professionals for want of TDS on the application of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the extent of Rs.20,31,500/- and consequently erred in sustaining the addition made in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 8. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event the financial treatment of such expenses would vitiate the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for making the said disallowance in the computation of taxable total income. 9. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the attempt of the Assessing Officer in making the said two disallowances out of the pre-operative expenses shown in the balance sheet was not understood by him in the impugned order and ought to have appreciated that there was no power to apply the said provisions of the Act for making the disallowance on the wrong presumption of deductions claimed in relation thereto in the computation of taxable total income. 10. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of developing and operating hotels filed its return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 04.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.14,20,289/-, which includes Nil income from business and Rs.14,20,289/- from income from other sources. During the previous year relevant to assessment year 2010-11, the assessee company was in the process of constructing hotel and thus, there was no business 4 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 operations. The case was taken up for scrutiny and assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.03.2013, where the Assessing Officer had made certain disallowances including disallowances of certain expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS u/s.194C of the Act, disallowance of interest expenses u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act for diversion of interest bearing funds for non-business purpose. The assessee carried matter in appeal before learned CIT(A), but could not succeed. The learned CIT(A) for detailed reasons recorded in his appellate order dated 30.09.2016 sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowances of certain expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, and further disallowance of interest expenditure u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act for diversion of interest bearing funds non-business purpose. Being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The first issue that came up for consideration from ground no. 2 to 6 of the assessee appeal is disallowance of proportionate interest expenses aggregating to Rs.3,93,87,137/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, and reduced same 5 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 from pre-operative expenses. The facts with regard to impugned dispute are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has borrowed huge loans from banks and financial institutions for construction of hotel, however, loans borrowed from bank and financial institutions has been diverted to non-business purpose being loans and advances to associate/sister concerns. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has made investments in mutual funds and same has been subsequently used for giving loans and advances to associate concerns. Therefore, called upon the assessee to explain as to why proportionate interest expenses incurred on loans borrowed from banks cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. In response, the assessee claimed that provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act cannot be invoked to disallow proportionate interest, because said provision is applicable when the assessee has computed income from business or profession, but not when the assessee has debited all expenses to pre-operative expenses during implementation of the project. The assessee further submitted that although it has borrowed huge loans from banks, but promoters of the 6 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 company had infused funds in the form of share capital and out of the said share capital the assessee has given loans & advances to the sister concerns and thus, if at all, interest free loans are given to associate or sister concern, same was given out of own funds and thus, interest expenditure cannot be disallowed. 5. The Assessing Officer, however was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to him, the assessee has used interest bearing funds for non- business purpose being investments in mutual funds and further, giving loans & advances to associate concerns and thus, opined that the assessee has diverted interest bearing funds for non-business purpose and hence, opined that proportionate interest paid to banks cannot be allowed as deduction u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, he had worked out diversion of funds given to associate/sister concerns for non-business purpose in light of total loan amount borrowed by the assessee from banks and has disallowed proportionate interest expenses of Rs.3,93,87,137/- and reduced same from 7 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 pre-operative expenses. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as under:- “ As per section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the amount of interest in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is only allowed as deduction. While verifying the books and records of the company, it is seen that from borrowed capital the assessee had made investment in various mutual fund and provided loans & advances to its various sister companies. The assessee vide this office letter dated 22.02.2o13 was directed to show cause why claim of interest expenses made by you should not be recomputed for the purpose of actual interest attributable to the project as under:- On verification of balance sheet for assessment year 2009-10, the assessee company had availed loan of 45 crores from IDBI bank on which Rs.35 crores was invested in following mutual funds. The details are as follows:- 8 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 It is seen that IDBI Bank Ltd. has disbursed Rs.120 crores on various dates during assessment year 2010-11 to the assessee company for purpose of construction of hotel project. On verification of books of account, it found that some of the loan disbursements has been not utilized for the purpose of this project. 9 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 Since the assessee company has not utilized the borrowed funds fully for the purpose of Capital Assets i.e Construction of Hotel project, the assessee was ask to show cause why the expenditure claim should not be re-computed as above. The assessee vide its reply 23.02.2013 the assessee stated that it has to be borne in mind that the assessee had brought in a sum of Rs.236.78 Crores as on 31.03.2009 and Rs.266.80 Crores as on 31.03.2010 by way of promoters capital including the securities premium related to the preference shares issued by the assessee. The said sum of Rs.63.25 Crores on which the proposed interest disallowance is contemplated must be assumed to have flown from the capital funds of Rs.266.80 Crores brought in by the promoters and cannot be inked to the borrowings made by the assessee company in isolation to the capital brought in by the promoters of a sum of Rs.266.80 Crores. The assessee also contended that in the same reply that no disallowance can be made u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, by way of proportionate interest of sum of Rs.3,93,87,137/- on the alleged diversion of funds of an amount of Rs.63.25 crores as again deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) is linked to the income chargeable under the head ‘ business or profession’ which is admittedly absent in 10 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 the case of the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 under consideration which is not accepted and disallowance of Rs.3,93,87,137/- is hereby made.” 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated its arguments made before the Assessing Officer in light of certain judicial precedents and argued that interest free loans given to its parent company M/s. Forex Finance P.Ltd. is out of own funds and thus, interest cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant facts and also by following his predecessor learned CIT(A) order for assessment year 2011-12 observed that as per facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer, it is very clear that the assessee has diverted interest bearing funds for non-business purpose and further, failed to explain how such loans are coming under purview of commercial expediency between two concerns and thus, opined that there is no error in reasons given by the Assessing Officer to disallow proportionate interest expenses u/s.36(1)(iii) and hence, confirmed additions made by the 11 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of proportionate interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, on the ground of diversion of interest bearing funds to assessee’s parent company M/s. Forex Finance P.Ltd. and further, reducing same from pre-operative expenses, without appreciating fact that in order to apply provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act , there should be income from business or profession and further, the assessee should have diverted interest bearing funds for non- business purpose. In this case, first of all there is no diversion of interest bearing funds for non-business purpose, because interest free loans given to its parent company is out of own funds in the form of share capital and reserves, which is evident from fact that promoters of the company has infused huge capital for purpose of construction of hotel building and out of said funds, these loans are given to parent company. He further submitted that even assuming for a moment, there is diversion of interest bearing funds, but proportionate interest 12 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 expenses cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, because the assessee has not claimed deduction for said interest expenditure in the profit & loss account and thus, in absence of any income from business or profession, no disallowances can be made u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in arguments taken by the learned AR for the assessee that when there is no income from business or profession, disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, cannot be made because, even if expenses are debited into pre-operative expenses, but said expenses will be claimed as deduction as and when the assessee commences its business operations. Therefore, once it is proved that there is diversion of interest bearing funds, proportionate interest expenses should be disallowed whether or not said expenditure is debited into profit & loss account or pre-operative expenses. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the ITAT.,Hyderbad Benches in the case of M/s. Alaknanda Hydro Power Co.Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1573/Hyd/2014 vide order dated 19.06.2015. 13 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The facts borne out from records clearly indicate that the assessee has borrowed huge loans from banks and financial institutions for construction of hotel building. It is also an admitted fact that promoters of the assessee company has infused share capital for purpose of construction of building. The facts borne out from records further indicate that the assessee has made investments in mutual funds and further, said investments has been subsequently used for giving interest free loans to associate/sister concerns. As per facts brought on record by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the assessee has made investments in mutual funds of Rs.35 crores and further, same has been used for giving interest free advances to M/s.Rishi Trading Co.Ltd. and M/s.Forex Finance P.Ltd. From the above, what is clear is that there is diversion of funds to associate/sister concerns for non- business purposes. The case of the Assessing Officer was that the assessee has diverted interest bearing funds and such conclusion has been arrived on the basis of loans borrowed from banks, as per which the assessee has borrowed a sum of 14 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 Rs.180 crores from IDBI Bank Ltd. It was explanation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that though there is diversion of funds to parent company, but said interest free loans was given out of promoters contribution. As per the assessee, promoters have brought in share capital amounting to Rs.266.80 crores. Therefore, interest free loans and advances given to parent company was given out of own capital, but not from borrowed capital and hence, proportionate interest cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. 10. Having heard both the sides and considered materials available on record, we do not find any substance in arguments taken by the learned AR for the assessee on the theory of availability of own funds to explain interest free loans given to its parent company M/s. Forex Finance P.Ltd., for simple reason that though promoters have infused share capital, but such share capital was infused for purpose of construction of hotel building, but not for giving interest free advances to its sister concerns. We further noted that bank had given finance of Rs.180 crores and that being the case, it is necessary for the assessee to bring in its capital to match with bank finance for 15 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 completion of hotel projects. Therefore, if at all, there is promoters contribution in the form of share capital, it is presumed that said share capital was used for construction of hotel building and thus, argument of the assessee that interest free loans given to parent company is out of promoters contribution cannot be accepted. 11. As regards other arguments of the assessee in light of capitalization of interest expenses to pre-operative expenses, we find that though the assessee has debited interest expenses to pre-operative expenses, but fact remains that when the assessee commences its business operations, said pre- operative expenditure will be claimed as deduction over a period and thus, merely for the reason that interest expenses is not debited into profit & loss account, it cannot be argued that provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act has no application. The purpose of introduction of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act to the statute was that interest paid on loans borrowed for business purpose can alone be allowed as deduction. In case, borrowed funds is used for non-business purpose, it restricts deduction of proportionate interest pertains to said diversion of 16 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 funds for non-business purpose. Therefore, even if interest expenditure is debited to pre-operative expenses, once it is proved that diversion of interest bearing funds for non-business purpose, then proportionate interest expenses relatable to diversion of funds should be disallowed in terms of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, and further, if said interest expenses is debited into pre-operative expenses, it should be reduced from pre-operative expenses. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the arguments taken by the learned AR for the assessee that proportionate interest expenses cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence, we are inclined to uphold findings of the learned CIT(A) and reject grounds taken by the assessee. 12. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 7 to 9 of the assessee appeal is disallowance of certain expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS u/s.194C / 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made certain payments to various professionals without deduction of TDS as applicable 17 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 u/s.194C / 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, total expenditure in the nature of professional charges amounting to Rs.20,31,500/- has been disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that professional charges paid to various parties was not debited into profit & loss account and thus, once expenditure was not claimed as deduction, provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, cannot be applied to disallow for non-deduction of TDS under respective provisions of the Act. 13. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee has made certain payments to various professionals without deduction of TDS u/s.194C / 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The only contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that for impugned payments provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, cannot be applied, because said payments has not been treated as expenditure, while computing income from profits & gains from business or profession. Except this, the assessee has not justified its case with reference to any evidence either for non- 18 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 deduction of TDS or for non-application of relevant TDS provisions for impugned payments. Therefore, it is necessary to decide the issue in light of preliminary arguments taken by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has no application to certain payments made for various professionals, when such payment was not treated as expenditure in the books of account of the assessee. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act deals with disallowances of certain expenditure for non-deduction of TDS applicable as per law. Admittedly, various payments made by the assessee for services are covered under provisions of section 194C / 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, applicability of TDS provisions is not in doubtful. As regards contention of the assessee that when deduction was not claimed for any particular expenditure, no disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for non-deduction of TDS, we are not inclined to accept arguments of the learned AR for the assessee for simple reason that even if, the assessee is not claiming deduction for such expenditure for said impugned assessment year, but definitely deduction will be claimed for said expenditure when the assessee will commence 19 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 its business operations in subsequent years. Therefore, as long as expenditure incurred by the assessee are in nature of business expenditure which can be claimed as deduction, then application of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act should be tested in light of applicable TDS provisions. Therefore, to this extent, arguments of the assessee has been rejected. But, fact remains that the assessee has not made any effort to gather evidences to argue its case on merits on the issue of applicability of TDS provisions on said payments and further not justified its case for non-deduction of TDS on such payments. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, to give one more opportunity to the assesse to justify its case, the issue needs to go back to the Assessing Officer. Hence, the issue is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to reconsider the issue of applicability of TDS provisions on impugned payments in accordance with law. 14. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.24/Chny/2017 (A.Y. 2011-12): 15. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 1 to 6 of assessee appeal is disallowance of 20 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 proportionate interest expenses aggregating to Rs.4,76,50,661/- u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, on the ground of diversion of interest bearing funds paid to assessee’s parent company M/s.Forex Finance P.Ltd. and reducing same from pre-operative expenses. We find that an identical issue has been considered by us in ITA No.23/Chny/2017 for assessment year 2010-11, where under identical set of facts, we have considered diversion of interest bearing funds for non-business purpose being interest free loans given to its parent company M/s. Forex Finance P.Ltd. and after considering relevant facts, we held that although, the assessee claims to have used shareholder funds for giving interest free loans to its parent company, but on perusal of various facts brought out by the Assessing Officer, it was very clear that shareholder funds were locked up and used for construction of hotel building and thus, interest free loans given to associate concerns is out of borrowed funds and thus, the Assessing Officer is right in disallowing proportionate interest expenses u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, and further reducing same from pre-operative expenses. The reasons given by us in preceding paragraph No. 9 & 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, 21 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 for similar reasons, we are inclined to uphold findings of the learned CIT(A) and reject ground taken by the assessee. 16. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no. 7 to 11 of assessee appeal is disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The facts with regard to impugned dispute are that the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.36,77,665/- being dividend from mutual funds, but did not make suo motu disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has computed disallowance u/s.14A of the Act by invoking Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962, and determined total disallowance of Rs.1,33,42,916/- and further reduced same from pre-operative expenses, because the assessee has debited expenditure into pre-operative expenses account. 17. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance u/s.14A by invoking Rule 8D without appreciating fact that the assessee has not debited any expenditure into profit & loss account and thus, question of disallowance of expenses relatable to exempt income does not arise. The learned AR further submitted that 22 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.36,77,665/- whereas the Assessing Officer determined disallowance of Rs.1,33,42,916/- which is more than the amount of exempt income which is not permissible under law. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Redington India Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2017) 77 Taxmann.com 257 (Mad) has already held that disallowances contemplated u/s.14A cannot swallow entire exempt income earned for the year. Therefore, if at all disallowance is required, then it should be restricted to extent of exempt income earned for the year. 18. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that the assessee although claims to have used own funds for making dividend bearing investments, but on perusal of facts, it is very clear that the assessee has borrowed huge funds from bank and same has been used for investments. Therefore, when the assessee has utilized borrowed funds for making investments interest relatable to said borrowed funds should be disallowed as per provisions of section 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer, after considering relevant facts has rightly invoked Rule 8D to 23 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 compute disallowance u/s.14A which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and hence, their orders should be upheld. 19. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The assessee has made short term investments in mutual funds and earned divided income. The assessee has not made any disallowances towards expenses relatable to exempt income. The assessee claimed that since it has used interest free funds for investments, no disallowance can be made for interest expenses. As regards other expenses, it was explanation of the assessee before the Assessing Officer that since investments made in mutual funds are for temporary period, there is no cost associated with said investments and thus, question of disallowance of other expenses does not arise. It was finding of the Assessing Officer that although the assessee claims to have used only interest free funds for investments, but because the assessee has not maintained separate books of account and further, there is mixture of borrowed and interest free funds, possibility of utilization of interest bearing funds cannot be ruled out. Therefore, he opined 24 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 that interest expenses relatable to funds used for investments should be disallowed in terms of provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T Rules, 1962. 20. Having heard both the sides and considered materials on record, we are inclined to accept arguments of the assessee counsel, insofar as issue of quantum of disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because it is well settled principles of law by decisions of various courts, including decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of M/s. Redington India Ltd. (supra), where it was clearly held that disallowances contemplated u/s.14A cannot exceed exempt income earned for the year. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JCIT VS. Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. 233 taxmann.com 117 had also considered identical issue and held that disallowances contemplated u/s.14A cannot swallow entire exempt income for the year under consideration. The sum and substance of ratio laid down by various High Courts is that disallowance of expenses u/s.14A cannot exceed exempt income of the assessee earned for the year. In this case, the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.36,77,665/- 25 ITA Nos.23 & 24/Chny/2017 whereas, the Assessing Officer has computed disallowance of Rs.1,33,42,916/ which is more than amount of exempt income earned for the year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) has clearly erred in disallowing expenses relatable to exempt income u/s.14A of the Act over and above exempt income earned for the year. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance u/s.14A of the Act, to the extent of exempt income earned for the year. 21. In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 22. To sum up, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 th January, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- ( वी.द ु गा राव) ( जी. मंज ु नाथ) (V.Durga Rao) ( G.Manjunatha ) #या यक सद&य /Judicial Member लेखा सद&य / Accountant Member चे#नई/Chennai, )दनांक/Dated 12 th January, 2022 DS आदेश क त+ल,प अ-े,षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु .त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आय ु .त/CIT 5. ,वभागीय त न2ध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.app
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Legal Requirements
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹1
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
HUF Deed
Mehul₹500
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026