S. 14A: Onus is on AO to show expenditure is incurred to earn tax-free income

For AY 2006-07, the assessee earned dividend of Rs. 17 lakhs and LTCG of Rs. 12 crores. The assessee claimed that it had incurred no expense to earn the tax-free income and so no s. 14A disallowance was permissible. However, the AO disallowed Rs. 2 crores under Rule 8D towards interest and admin expenditure. The CIT (A) accepted that no interest was incurred and deleted that disallowance. He also reduced the admin expenditure disallowance. On appeal to the Tribunal, HELD:

(i) The contention of the Revenue that some expenditure, directly or indirectly, is always incurred for earning tax-free income cannot be accepted. The burden is on the AO to establish the nexus of the expenditure incurred with the earning of exempt income before making any disallowance u/s 14A (Hero Cycles 323 ITR 518 (P&H), Jindal Photo followed)

(ii) As regards interest, the AO has to show the nexus between the borrowed funds and the tax free investments. If that is not done, disallowance of interest is not permissible (K. Raheja Corporation (Bom) followed)

(iii) As regards admin expenses, s. 14A disallowance cannot be made on an ad-hoc basis. It is the department’s responsibility to bring material on record to show that expenditure was incurred for earning the exempt income. If this is not done, disallowance is not permissible (Wimco Seedlings followed)

Under Article 7 of the DTAA, foreign PE profits may be taxed in India

The assessee, an Indian PSU company, earned Rs. 10.68 crores from foreign projects in Oman etc. The assessee claimed that it had a “permanent establishment” (PE) in those countries and that in accordance with the DTAA, only the source country was entitled to tax the profits and India was not authorized to tax the foreign PE profits. HELD by the Tribunal rejecting the plea:

Article 7 of the DTAA provides that the profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that state of residence unless the enterprise carries on business in other contracting state through a PE situated therein. If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise “may be taxed” in the other Contracting State but only so much of them as is attributable directly or indirectly to the PE. While the first part gives exclusive taxation right to the State of residency, the second part gives taxation right to the state of residency as well as to the State where the PE is situated. The phrase “may be taxed” shows that the State of source has the non-exclusive right to tax while the State of residence continues to have the inherent right to tax. This interpretation is supported by the OECD Commentary on the Model Convention. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar 267 ITR 654 (SC) turned on different facts and does not lay down the proposition that the profits of a foreign PE cannot be taxed in the State of residence of the assessee.

Foreign income-tax is deductible u/s 37(1). Bar in s. 40(a)(ii) does not apply to foreign taxes

The assessee paid Rs.42.57 lakhs in Belgium as income-tax and claimed that as deduction u/s 37(1). The AO rejected the claim by relying on s, 40(a)(ii) which provides that any sum paid on account of tax levied on profits or gains of business shall not be allowable as a deduction, though the CIT (A) allowed the claim on the ground that the bar in s. 40(a)(ii) did not apply to foreign taxes. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:

The term “tax” is defined in s. 2(43) to mean income-tax chargeable under the provisions of this Act. S. 37(1) allows a deduction of all taxes and rates. Taxes levied in foreign countries whether on profits or gains or otherwise are deductible u/s 37(1) not hit by s. 40(a)(ii). It is also not application of income. The same view has been taken by ITAT Mumbai in South East Asia Shipping Co & Tata Sons Ltd and the department’s Reference Applications u/s 256(1) & 256(2) were rejected and the issue has reached finality.

S. 54EC: If investment within 6 months of transfer is impossible, then relief available if investment made within 6 months of receipt of consideration

The assessee entered into a development agreement on 12.7.2005 in which the consideration was fixed at Rs 2.50 crores. A correction deed was entered into on 2.7.2007 in which the sale consideration was increased to Rs. 4.90 crores. The assessee invested Rs. 50 lakhs in s. 54EC bonds on 3.8.2007 and 27.10.2007. The AO held that the date of transfer was 12.7.2005 and as the s. 54EC investments had been made beyond a period of 6 months from the date of transfer, the exemption was not available. The assessee claimed that as it was impossible for him to invest within 6 months from the date of transfer, the period of 6 months had to be reckoned from the date of receipt of consideration. HELD by the Tribunal:

Though s. 54EC requires the investment to be made within 6 months of the date of transfer, a technical interpretation cannot be adopted but it has to be interpreted having regard to the purpose and spirit of the section. In Circular No 791 dated 2.6.2000 the CBDT held in the context of capital gains arising u/s 45(2), that though the transfer arises in the year of conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade, the period of 6 months for investment u/s 54E has to be reckoned from the date of sale of the stock-in-trade. The CBDT appreciated the impossibility of the assessee being able to invest the amount in specified assets within six months from the date of transfer. This interpretation of the CBDT supports the assessee’s claim that where the consideration is received much after the date of transfer and it is not possible to invest the same within 6 months of the date of transfer, the period of 6 months must be reckoned from the date of receipt of consideration.

TPO has no power to question business purpose of transaction

The assessee made payment of Rs. 31.34 crores to its associated enterprise for “Second Line Support” services. The TPO & DRP held that the assessee had not benefited from the expenditure and that it was not “necessary to be incurred” and that its ALP was Nil. On appeal by the assessee HELD:

There is no force in the Revenue’s claim that the assessee was not required to make any payment to its AE for resolving warranty claims. The assessee has the right to enter into an arrangement according to which its business interests are protected. It is the prerogative of the assessee to decide the business expediency. Rule 10B(1)(a) does not authorize disallowance of any expendtture on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same or that in view of the expenditure was unremunerative or that in view of the continued losses suffered by the assessee in his business, he could have fared better had he not incurred such expenditure. However, the reasonableness of an expenditure has not been excluded from determination and the TPO has to determine the ALP of the transaction (CIT vs. EKL Appliances Ltd & Dresser Rand followed).

S. 194C default does not result in s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance if TDS paid before ROI due date

For AY 2008-09, the assessee made payments to contractors from April 2007 to February 2008. However, the TDS thereon was deducted (belated) in March 2008 and paid before the due date for filing the ROI. The AO disallowed the payments u/s 40(a)(ia) though the CIT (A), relying on Bapusaheb Nanasaheb Dhumal, allowed the claim on the ground that as the TDS was (belatedly) deducted in March 2008, it could be paid before the due date for filing the ROI. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) Though u/s 194C, tax had to be deducted at the time of payment or credit, the assessee deducted TDS only in March. While the assessee has to face consequences for its failure to deduct TDS in time, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made because clause (A) of the proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) provides that if the tax is deducted during the last month of previous year and paid on or before the due date of filing the ROI, no disallowance shall be made (Bapusaheb Nanasaheb Dhumal 40 SOT 361 (Mum) followed);

(ii) S. 40(a)(ia) was amended by the FA 2010 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 to provide that no disallowance shall be made if the TDS (for whichever month) is paid before the due date of filing the ROI. While in Bharti Shipyard Ltd 132 ITD 53 (Mum) (SB), it was held that the amendment is not retrospective, a contrary view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Virgin Creations. Considering the precedent in the judicial hierarchy, the judgement of the non-jurisdictional High Court prevails over a judgement of the Special Bench (Kanel Oil & Export 121 ITD 596 (Ahd) (TM) followed)

No S. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance without showing how assessee’s method is wrong

In AY 2008-09, the assessee claimed that it had not incurred any expenditure in earning dividend income and no disallowance u/s 14A could be made. However, the AO computed disallowance u/s14A & Rule 8D of Rs.12.81 lakhs. This was upheld by the CIT (A). On appeal to the Tribunal, HELD:

S. 14A(2) empowers the AO to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to tax-free income if, “having regard to the accounts of the assessee, he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee“. The satisfaction of the AO as to the incorrect claim made by the assessee is sine qua non for invoking the applicability of Rule 8D. The satisfaction can be reached only when the claim of the assessee is verified. If the assessee proves before the AO that it incurred a particular expenditure in respect of earning the exempt income and the AO is satisfied, then there is no requirement to proceed with the computation under Rule 8D. The AO wrongly proceeded on the premise that Rule 8D is automatic irrespective of the genuineness of the assessee’s claim in respect of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income. The correct sequence for making any disallowance u/s14A is to, firstly, examine the assessee’s claim of having incurred some expenditure or no expenditure in relation to exempt income. If the AO is satisfied with the same, then there is no need to compute disallowance as per Rule 8D. It is only when the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure or no expenditure having been incurred in relation to exempt income, that the mandate of Rule 8D will operate.

Despite borrowing, gains on shares assessable as STCG & not business profits

The assessee earned gains from shares of which Rs. 7.61 crores was out of delivery-based transactions and offered as STCG while Rs. 4.26 crores was out of futures & options and offered as business profits. The AO & CIT (A) assessed the STCG as business profits on the ground that (a) there was no LTCG, (b) there was no dividends, (c) there were hundreds of transactions during the year, (d) the assesee had borrowed interest-bearing funds for purchase of shares & (e) the average holding period was 41 days. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:

In the books, the delivery based transactions were accounted as investment and a distinction from the non-delivery transactions is maintained. The transactions were with a limited number of companies (8) and the average number of transactions in one month were 8. The CBDT Circular permits the assessee to deal in the shares of one scrip and treat some as trading and some as a capital investment. The fact that the assessee borrowed funds for investing in shares cannot constitute a factor as in none of the case laws or CBDT circular it has been held that borrowings will not be allowed in investment transactions. Investment in capital assets can also be carried out by use of borrowed funds. There is no bar notified by the law, judicial pronouncement or CBDT Circular.

Dept’s appeal dismissed owing to ‘apathy’ in serving notice of hearing

Notice of hearing of the department’s appeal could not be served on the assessee through post at the address given in Form 36. The DR was accordingly directed to directly effect service of the notice of hearing on the assessee. On the date of hearing, the DR was unable to say whether service was effected or not. HELD by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal:

The department has shown total apathy in the matter of service of notices of hearing. The opportunity of hearing to the other side is essential before adjudicating appeal for which service of notice is condition precedent. It is the established practice and procedure that in case notices of hearing cannot be served on the assessee in revenue’s appeals, such notices are got served through Income-tax authorities. This practice is based on considerations of expediency and equity and is fully in conformity with the judicial powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal and does not run contrary to any provisions of the Statute. It is within the incidental or implied powers of the Tribunal as enunciated in M.K. Mohammed Kunhi 71 ITR 815 (SC) & Paras Laminates 186 ITR 722 (SC). Accordingly, the Tribunal was within its powers to direct, and it was obligatory on the part of the I.T. authority, to effect service of notice of hearing on the assessee since the service could not be effected by post at the address given by the revenue in the memorandum of appeal since the department, as an executive organization, is well equipped with the requisite staff strength of Notice Server, Income-tax Inspector etc. for serving various statutory notices on the tax payer. Since the revenue has shown apathy with regard for serving the notices of hearing on the assessee and has also not made any request to get the notice served by alternate way i.e., by way of publication etc as laid down in rule 20 of CPC, there is no alternative but to dismiss the appeal (Aditya Organisers 91 ITD 342 (Ahd) followed)

S. 40(a)(ia): Special Bench verdict cannot be followed in view of High Court verdict

In AY 2005-06, the assessee made payments to contractors & for professionals & technical services. Though TDS was deducted, it was paid after the end of the FY but before filing the ROI. The assessee pleaded that s. 40(a)(ia), as amended by the FA 2010 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 to provide that no disallowance should be made if the TDS was paid before the due date of filing the ROI should be held to be retrospective. However, the AO & CIT (A), rejected the claim by relying on Bharati Shipyard Ltd 132 ITD 53 (Mum) (SB). On appeal to the Tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal:

The issue involved has now been decided by the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Virgin Creators against the Revenue. However, it is noteworthy that the Special Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bharati Shipyard Ltd 132 ITD 53 (Mum) has taken a view that the amendment is prospective in nature and would apply accordingly. Respectfully following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Virgin Creators the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the assessee’s appeal is allowed.