Income Tax Appeal challenged Tribunal order deleting interest addition and restricting Section 14A disallowance. Court found substantial questions of law absent as orders followed binding precedents. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
151-14-itxa=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2014
The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Mumbai ..Appellant
v/s.
M/s. Bakliwal Financial Services (I) Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent
Mr. Ashok Kotangle a/w Ms. Padma Divakar for the appellant None for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & A.K. MENON, J.J. DATED : 16th AUGUST, 2016.
P.C.
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made on account of interest of Rs. 46,84,997/- paid on Bank
OD and unsecured loan, even though before the appellate
1 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
151-14-itxa=.doc
proceedings, the assessee failed to discharge its liability that the
loans has not been used for the purpose of business only?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A only to the extent of 5% of dividend income arbitrarily without any reasonable basis ?”
3. Regarding question (i) :-
(a) We find that the impugned order records the fact that the interest
free advances made by the respondent assessee to its sister concern was to the extent of Rs.28.67 crores at a time when it had its own interest free funds available to the extent of Rs.41.84 crores. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 wherein it is held that if both interest free funds and interest bearing funds are available, then a presumption arises that investments / advances have been made out of interest free funds, the disallowance of interest payment of Rs.46.84 lakhs made to the bank was deleted. This was since interest free advances are much less than the interest free funds available with the respondent assessee giving rise to the presumption as laid down in Reliance Utility Power Ltd. (supra) .
2 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
151-14-itxa=.doc
(b) In view of the above, as the impugned order of the Tribunal has only followed a binding decision of this Court in Reliance Utilities (supra) , the issue as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
4. Regarding Question no.(ii) :-
(a) The Assessing Officer dis-allowed an expenditure of Rs.49.14 lakhs under Section 14A of the Act by invoking Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
(b) In appeal, the CIT(A) held that in view of the binding decision of this Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 328 ITR 81 the Rule 8D cannot be invoked for the subject assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2007-08. In the above view following a reasonable method, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disallowed expenditure under Section 14A of the Act to the extent of 5% of the dividend earned.
(c) The further appeal by the Revenue to the Tribunal was dismissed. This on the basis that the disallowance made by the CIT(A) at 5%, the exempt dividend income is reasonable. The impugned order observes that in a number of cases the disallowance made at 2% of the exempt income, was held to be reasonable.
3 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
151-14-itxa=.doc
4 of 4
Uday S. Jagtap
2 issues framed by the court
whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting interest additions despite failure to discharge that loans were used only for business
whether the Tribunal was justified in restricting Section 14A disallowance to 5% of dividend income arbitrarily
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Income Tax-4 Mumbai
M/s. Bakliwal Financial Services (I) Pvt.Ltd.
M.S. SANKLECHA
A.K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
