Where the Special Bench had to consider whether s. 14A applied with respect to dividend earned by an assessee trading in shares and holding shares as stock-in-trade, HELD:
By the Bench:
(i) S. 14A has an overriding effect and applies to all expenditure in relation to exempt income even though such expenditure would have been allowable under other provisions such as 36 (1) (iii);
(ii) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 14A, though inserted by the F. A. 2006 w.e.f. 1.4.2007, read with Rule 8D, are procedural and clarificatory in nature and apply to pending matters;
By the Majority:
(iii) The words “in relation to” in s. 14A encompass not only the direct expense but also the indirect expense which has any relation to the exempt income. The argument that the words contemplate a “direct and immediate connection” between the expenditure and the exempt income cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the argument that s. 14A cannot apply to shares held as stock-in-trade cannot be accepted. The fact that the dividend income is “incidental” to the purchase of shares is also irrelevant. The question as to whether the onus is on the assessee or the AO for bringing an item of expenditure within s. 14A is also irrelevant in view of Rule 8D;
By the VP, dissenting:
(iv) The words “in relation to” in s. 14A mean a “dominant and immediate connection” between the expenditure and the exempt income. To determine whether there is such a connection, one has to see the object with which the expenditure is incurred. If the expenditure is incurred mainly to earn taxable income and the tax-free income is incidental, there is no such connection and s. 14A does not apply. The onus is on the AO to establish that there is a “dominant and immediate connection” between the expenditure and the exempt income;
(v) In the case of a dealer in shares, the dominant object of acquiring shares is not to earn dividend and consequently s. 14A does not apply.
Related Judgements
- Cheminvest Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi Special Bench)
In Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 522 the Supreme Court held that interest on monies borrowed for purchase of shares was allowable as a deduction u/s 57 (iii) irrespective of whether or not there is any yield of dividend to the assessee. It was held that the words “expenditure…
- CIT vs. Hero Cycles (P & H High Court)
Disallowance u/s 14A and Rule 8D requires a finding of incurring of expenditure. If it is found that for earning exempted income no expenditure has been incurred, disallowance u/s 14A cannot stand. The disallowance u/s 14A and Rule 8D cannot be made on presumption.
- CIT vs. Wallfort Shares & Stocks (Bombay High Court)
Where the assessee bought units of a mutual fund, received tax-free dividend thereon and immediately thereafter redeemed the units and claimed the difference between the cost price and redemption value as a loss and the same had been upheld by a Five Member Special Bench of the Tribunal as…
February 26th, 2009 at 10:11 am
[...] Tribunal the department argued that in view of the judgement of the Special Bench of the ITAT in Daga Capital 26 SOT 603 the matter had to be remanded to the AO for applicability of Rule 8D and the judgement [...]
May 8th, 2009 at 7:47 am
[...] amount has to be worked out by the AO as per Rule 8D as held the Special Bench judgement in ITO Vs. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 119 TTJ (Mum) (SB) 289. However, the disallowance u/s 14A in the fresh proceedings cannot [...]