Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
From the Courts »
 Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 CST vs. Shri Krishna Chaitanya Enterprises (Bombay High Court)
 Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 Vs. Pavitra Commercial Ltd.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi Iv Vs. Gee Kay Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.
 Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 Vs. Nokia Solutions & Network India Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As, Nokia Siemens Network Pvt Ltd)
 SKY Light Hospitality Llp Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -28(1), New Delhi
 Tax outgo may rise for investors in companies undergoing M&A cases
 Rajat B Mehta vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
 Seema Sabharwal vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
  Vikram Singh vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)

Integrated Databases India. Ltd.K-9- Block, Connaught Cireus, New Delhi - 110001Vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1) New Delhi.
February, 16th 2015
                     DELHI BENCH `C': NEW DELHI


                                ITA No. 4582/Del/2013
                               Assessment Year 2009-10

Integrated Databases India. Ltd.        Vs.   DCIT, Circle-11(1)
K-9- Block, Connaught Cireus,                 New Delhi.
New Delhi - 110001

(PAN AAACI 2809 J)

(Appellant)                                          (Respondent)

              Appellant by   :     Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate And
                                   Shri Shailesh Gupta, CA
              Respondent by:       Sh. Robin Rawal, Sr. D.R.



1.    This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order of the

CIT(A) dated 10.06.2013. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10.

2.    The effective grounds argued in the course of the hearing reads as follows:-

      "2(a) That the Ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in disallowing expenses for earning
            Dividend Income;
       2(b) That the Ld. CIT(A) has gone in disallowing expenses for earning Dividend
            Income by considering those Investment on which no dividend has been
            received by the assessee company during the year."
                                                                      ITA No.4582/Del /2013   2

3.     Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows.

       The assessee is a limited company. It is engaged in the business of book

publishing and export of software. The return of income was filed on 29.09.2009

declaring total income of Rs.1,50,37,780/-. The assessment was taken up for

scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and the scrutiny assessment was

completed u/s 143(3) of the Act (assessment order dated 13.12.2011). In the scrutiny

assessment completed, the Assessing Officer had made a disallowance u/s 14A of

the Act amounting to Rs.2,34,629/-. The relevant observation of the Assessing

Officer in making the addition of Rs.2,34,629/- reads as follow:-

(at Page 6)   " Disallowance under Rule 8D of IT Rules being 0.5% of the average
              investment i.e. Rs.8,20,44,780/- comes out to Rs.4,10,224/-. The assessee has
              itself disallowed an amount of Rs.1,75,592/-, however, the difference of
              Rs.2,34,629/- (410224-175595) is therefore, disallowed and added back to the
              total income of the assessee......."

4.     The assessee being aggrieved filed an appeal before the First Appellate

Authority. Before CIT(A), it was submitted that the AO is not justified in

including investment, which have not yield income, for the purpose of

disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The CIT(A) rejected the contentions raised

by the assessee and affirmed the order of the assessment. However, CIT(A)

directed the AO to exclude a sum of Rs.2.6 crores being the mutual fund, on

which, the assessee had paid capital gains tax under the head long term/short term

capital gains for the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10. For re-computation of

disallowance u/s 14A, the appeal of the assessee was restored to the AO (for the

exclusion of 2.6 crores from the "average investment").
                                                                ITA No.4582/Del /2013   3

5.       The assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us. Ld. counsel for the

assessee submitted that the investment on which no dividend/income is received

for the current assessment year are to be excluded for the purpose of disallowance

u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. counsel for the

assessee that the following judicial of precedents of the Hon'ble High Court and

the Tribunal have held that the investment on which no income was received are

to be excluded, while computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT


i)       CIT Vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. in ITA No.486/2014 and 299/2014.
ii)      ACIT Vs. M/s Computer Age Management Services (P) Ltd. in ITA
         No. 1236 and 1240/Mds/2014.
iii)     Mitshubishi Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 803/Del/2014.
iv)      LG Chemical India (P) Ltd. in ITA No.331/Del/2013.
v)       M/s Alliance Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.220
         and 1043/Bang/2013.

6.       Ld. D.R. present was duly heard.

7.       We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

Ld. AR has not disputed the applicability of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Rules, 1962.

The dispute is with regard to quantum of computation of disallowance by

invoking Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Rules. It is a case of the assessee that those

investments of shares and mutual funds on which no dividend is actually received

(though the same are eligible for dividends) ought to be excluded from "average

investment" for the purpose of computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of
                                                                        ITA No.4582/Del /2013   4

the IT Rules. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Holcim India

P. Ltd. reported in ITA No.486/2014 and 299/2014 have held that if there is no

exempt income earned during the year, they cannot be disallowed by invoking the

provision of Section 14A of the Act. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble

Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Holcim India P. Ltd. (Supra) reads as


Para 14     " On the issue whether the respondent-assessee could have earned dividend
            income and even if no dividend income was earned, yet section 14A can be
            invoked and disallowance of expenditure can be made, there are three
            decisions of the different High Courts directly on the issue and against the
            appellant ­Revenue. No contrary decision of a High Court has been shown to
            us. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax,
            Faridabad Vs. M/s Lakhani Marketing Incl., ITA No. 970/2008, decided on
            02.04.2014, made reference to two earlier decisions of the same Court in CIT
            Vs. Hero Cycles Limited, [2010] 323 ITR 518 and CIT Vs. Winsome Textile
            Industries Limited, [2009] 319 ITR 204 to hold that section 14A cannot be
            invoked when no exempt income was earned. The second decision is of the
            Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax ­I Vs. Corrtech Energy
            (P.) Ltd. [2014] 223 Taxmann 130 (Guj.). The third decision is of the
            Allahabad High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 88 of 2014, Commissioner
            of Income Tax (ii) Kanpur, Vs. M/s Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. decided on
            05.05.2014. In the said decision it has been held:
                   "As regards the second question, Section 14A of the Act provides that
                   for the purposes of computing the total income under the Chapter, no
                   deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the
                   assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total
                   income under the Act. Hence, what section 14A provides is that if
                   there is any income which does not form part of the income under the
                   Act, the expenditure which is incurred for earning the income is not
                   an allowable deduction. For the year in question, the finding of fact is
                   that the assessee had not earned any tax free income. Hence, in the
                   absence of any tax free income, the corresponding expenditure could
                   not be worked out for disallowance. The view of the CIT(A), which
                   has been affirmed by the Tribunal, hence does not give rise to any
                   substantial question of law. Hence, the deletion of the disallowance of
                   Rs.2,03,752/- made by the Assessing Officer was in order".
Para 15.    Income exempt under Section 10 in a particular assessment year, may not
            have been exempt earlier and can become taxable in future years. Further,
            whether income earned in a subsequent year would or would not be taxable,
                                                                        ITA No.4582/Del /2013   5

             may depend upon the nature of transaction entered into in the subsequent
             assessment year.........."

 8.    Similarly the Chennai Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s

 Computer Age Management Services (P) Ltd. reported in ITA No.1236 and

 1240/Mds/2014 has held as follows:-

"Para 10.   We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused orders of lower
            authorities and the decision relied on. On a careful consideration of the facts
            and circumstances of the case, we are not in agreement with the assessee that
            no expenditure was incurred in managing the portfolio of the assessee. The
            assessee company is into the business of registrars and share transfer agent. It
            is not in dispute that management of the assessee company periodically
            monitors through its Board of Directors about the investments. In such
            circumstances, it cannot be said that assessee has not at all incurred any
            expenses in managing its portfolios.
Para 11.    The Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) held
            that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made only by
            taking into consideration the investments which has given rise to such income
            which does not form part of the total income. While holding so, the Tribunal
            observed as under:-
                 "8. In respect of provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) which is the subject
                 matter of the assessee's appeal in the assessee's hand, a perusal of the
                 said provision shows that what is disallowable under Rule 8D(2)(iii)
                 is the amount equal to Y2 percentage of the average value of the
                 investment the income from which does not or shall not form part of
                 the total income. Thus, under sub-clause (iii) what is disallowed is Y2
                 percentage of the numerator B in Rule Bo(2)(ii). Again this is to be
                 calculated in the same line as mentioned earlier in respect of
                 Numerator B in Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Act.
                 8.1 Thus, not all investments become the subject matter of
                 consideration when computing disallowance under section 14A read
                 with rule 8D. The disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D
                 is to be in relation to the income which does not form part of the total
                 income and this can be done only by taking into consideration the
                 investment which has given rise to this income which does not form
                 part of the total income. Under the circumstances, the computation
                 of the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) which
                 is issue in the assessee's appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing
                 Officer for recomputation in line with the direction given above. No
                 disallowance under section 14A read with rule BD(2)(ii) and (ii) can
                 be made in this case."
Para 12.    Following the said decision, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the
                                                                    ITA No.4582/Del /2013   6

           disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by taking the amount equal to 1/2
           percentage of the average value of the investment which has given rise to the
           income which does not form part of total income."

9.    In view of the above, jurisdictional precedents on the subject, we direct the

AO to exclude from the "average investment" those investments on which no

dividend/income was received by the assessee in the current assessment year. For

the above said purpose, the issue is restored to the AO. The AO shall afford

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before re-computing

deduction under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Rules. It is ordered accordingly.

10.   In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

      The decision was pronounced in the open Court on 6th February, 2015.

      Sd/-                                                    Sd/-
 (T.S. KAPOOR)                                       (GEORGE GEORGE K.)
Accountant Member                                       Judicial Member

Dated: 6th February, 2015.

Copy forwarded to
1.   Appellant
2.   Respondent
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(A)
5.   DR
                                                     Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Publishing Management System PMS News Management System Publishing Management System Development Online News Management System for media company custom Publishing management system development Survey management system Market Res

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions