Section 14A: Consolidating latest Judicial Developments

Ever since the advent of section 14A in the statute, it has evoked squall of controversy. While the purpose of the section was to compute taxable income by whisking away the expenses attributable to exempt income, the tax department always tried to use it for fetching some more fortunes. In this article attempt has been made to look into real objective of statutory provisions through latest judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that capital gains from transfer of asset by Holding Company to its Wholly Owned Subsidiary which is exempt from tax under section 47(iv) of the Act is not ‘income’ as per section 2(24)(vi) of the Act and therefore cannot be included in computation of book profit for MAT purposes. Shivalik Venture Pvt Ltd v DCIT – 60 taxmann.com 314 (Mumbai – Trib)

The Tribunal held that surplus arising out of issue and subsequent repurchase and extinguishment of debentures at a lower price would not be taxable under section 41(1) of the Act as it was not on account of trading liability and also that it could not be considered as income under section 2(24) of the Act. Reliance Industries Ltd v ACIT – (2015) 45 CCH 0055 Mum Trib.

The Court held that Additional Finance Charges collected by the assessee on borrowers default in payment of EMIs was to be taxed on receipt basis and not accrual basis. It held that the test of real income is the chance or probability of realization and when there was uncertainty in the recovery of EMIs the recovery of the additional finance charge which was an additional burden was equally uncertain and to be taxed on receipt basis. CIT v Shriram Investments Ltd [Tax Case (Appeal) Nos 1222 & 1225 to 1228 of 2007] – TS-538-HC-2015 (MAD)

The Tribunal held that where the assessee was an ‘ESOP Trust’ created by settler-company for implementing its ESOP scheme the assessee was merely acting as ‘Special Purpose Vehicle’. Shares held by the assessee were in fiduciary capacity and assessee did not have absolute rights over those, so these shares could not be categorised as business assets. Thus, gain arising to assessee on transfer of shares to employees of settlor-company was to be treated as capital gain and not as business profits Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust v Add CIT – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 390 (Mum – Trib)

The Apex Court held that ponds specially designed for rearing of prawns were to be treated as tools of the aqua culture business of the assessee and that depreciation was admissible on the ponds at the rate applicable to plant and machinery. ACIT v Victory Aqua Farm Ltd – (2015) 61 taxmann.com 166 (SC)

The Tribunal held that discount under the ESOP scheme was in the nature of employees cost and therefore deductible during the vesting period with respect to the market price of the options at the time of exercise and therefore allowable as deduction in computing profits from business. ACIT v People Interactive India Pvt LTd – (2015) 45 CCH 0136 Mum Trib

The Court held that once amount realized by assessee by sale of building, plant and machinery was treated as income arising out of profits and gains from business by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 41 notwithstanding fact that assessee was not carrying on any business during relevant assessment year, provision contained in sub-section (2) of section 32 would become applicable and, consequently, set-off had to be given for unabsorbed depreciation allowances of previous year brought forward in terms of said provision. Karnataka Instrade Corporation v ACIT – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 239 (Kar)

The Tribunal held that Ice cream and Mawa fall in the genus of dairy / milk products and thus were covered by the nature of dairy business carried on by the assessee ACIT v Gravis Foods Pvt Ltd – (2015) 44 CCH 0560 Mum Trib

The Court held that since the object in the Memorandum permitted the assessee to carry on the business of letting out property and since 85 percent of the assessee’s income was derived from rent and lease rentals, the income constituted business income of the appellant and therefore compensation paid by the assessee to obtain possession from the tenant for the purpose of earning a higher rental income was to be allowed as a deduction as it was a business necessity. Shyam Burlap Company Ltd v CIT – (2015) 61 taxmann.com 121 (Calcutta

The Court held that where the assessee had taken a loan and advanced part of the loan to another company, the interest paid on the loan taken was in the nature of expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of earning interest income and was to be netted against income from other source as per section 57(iii) of the Act. Vodafone South Limited v CIT – (2015) 94 CCH 0026 Del HC

The Tribunal held that electricity duty collected and paid was not covered by section 43B of the Act as it was not a primary liability by way of tax, duty, cess or fee more since the assessee did not account for the amount in its profit and loss account. ACIT v Maharasthra State Electricity – (2015) 44 CCH 0513 Mum Trib

The Apex Court held that Sec 54G gave a period of three years to purchase a new machinery or plant etc. hence there was no compulsion on the assessee to purchase machinery, plant etc. within the same AY in which the transfer took place. It further held that advances paid for the purpose of purchase and/or acquisition of assets would amount to utilization of capital gains earned by the assessee. Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5525-5526 OF 2005] – TS-454-SC-2015

The Tribunal granted benefit under section 54F of the Act on the entire amount of investment in new house including the amount paid to the builders for amenities like car parking. It dismissed the revenue’s action of restricting the benefit to the value disclosed in the registered sale deed and held that disclosure of a lower value of property (excluding amount paid for amenities like car parking) for stamp duty was an issue alien to the question of allowing deduction under section 54 of the Act. S Tejraj Ranka v ACIT (ITA No.82/Bang/2014) – TS-512-ITAT-2015 (Bang)

The Tribunal held that the surrender of tenancy right was a “transfer” as defined under the Act and that the consideration received on such transfer was assessable to tax under section 45 of the Act and not under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’. It further allowed deduction under section 48 of the Act for expenses incurred on dismantling factory constructed on lease-hold land while computing capital gains upon surrender of lease hold rights on the ground that it was wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer irrespective of the fact that the expenses were incurred by a person other than the assessee. Sri Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar v ITO [ITA No 731 / Bang / 2014] – TS-498-ITAT-2015 (Bang)

The Apex Court upheld the order of the High Court wherein it was held that the condition precedent for issuing a notice under section 148 read with section 149(1)(c) of the Act invoking the extended period of limitation of sixteen years is that income which has escaped assessment must have relation to any asset outside India which was not satisfied as the Revenue did not bring anything on record to prove that there was an asset located outside India. ITO and Ors v Deccan Digital Networks Pvt Ltd [SPL No 9577/2015] – TS-510-SC-2015

The Tribunal held that where the assessee surrendered additional income pursuant to search proceedings, which related to sundry creditors, repairs to building, advances and stock which related to business carried on by it, it was to be included in income from business and not deemed income under section 69A of the Act. Dev Raj Hi-Tech Mechines Ltd v DCIT – (2015) 45 CCH 0106 Asr Trib

The Court held that the assessee was entitled to TDS credit without offering corresponding income to tax as per section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA since the corresponding income was assesseable in the sister concern’s hand who had not availed of such TDS CIT v Relcom (ITA 26/2015) – TS-618-HC-2015 (Del)

The Tribunal held that lease premium paid by the assessee was capital expenditure to acquire land with substantial right to construct and could not be considered as rent under section 194I and therefore no TDS was deductible. ITO(TDS) v Progressive Civil Engineers Pvt Ltd – (2015) 45 CCH 0137 Mum Trib

The Tribunal held that the provision of roaming services do not require any human intervention and accordingly could not be construed as technical services under section 194J of the Act. Further, 194C of the Act was also not applicable as the said section is applicable only where works contracts are being carried out requiring the presence of manpower which was not the case. Further, it was held that the payment was not covered by section 194I of the Act as the assessee was a mere facilitator between its subscriber and the service provider providing the equipment and never used the equipment involved in providing roaming facility. Vodafone East Ltd v ACIT – (2015) 61 taxmann.com 263 (Kolkata – Trib)

The assessee, engaged in the business of purchase and sale of shares, earned dividend income of Rs. 43.48 lakhs which it offered to tax as “income from other sources”. The assessee set-off the dividend income against its brought forward business loss. The AO & CIT (A) rejected the set-off on the ground that u/s 72 business losses can only be set-off against business income and not “income from other sources”. Held that U/s 72(1)(i), the brought forward business loss can be set-off against “the profits and gains of any business or profession carried on” by the assessee. S. 72 (1)(i) does not use the word “assessable under the ‘head‘ profits & gains of business”. So, the question is whether the securities formed part of the trading assets of the business and the income there from was income from the business. The answer to this question has to be decided on commercial principles and not on the basis of the classification of ‘heads of income’ in s. 14. Though for the purpose of computation of the income, dividends are assessable under the head “Other Sources”, it does not cease to be part of the income from business if the securities are part of the trading assets. Accordingly, the assessee is eligible for set-off as claimed (Cocanada Radhaswmi Bank 57 ITR 306 (SC) & New India Investment 130 ITR 778 (Cal) followed). Gagan Trading Co (ITAT Mumbai) [2011]

The assessee received an amount of Rs.43 lakhs being remission of liability of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. The assessee has prepared its P&L A/c by including this amount as income. The assessee submitted before the AO that this remission of the liability was on account of principal amount of loan and therefore, the same is not in the nature of income which can be considered as part of the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. Held that Even a non-taxable capital receipt credited to the P&L A/c cannot be excluded while computing the book profits. The fact that the notes to the A/cs state that the receipt is on capital account is irrelevant. B & B Infotech Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore) 07-10-2015

Interest on TDS refund, interest from lessees, interest on FDRs and Tender fees are all “derived” from the undertaking and are eligible for deduction. If items of income are not eligible, it should be netted off against expenditure and only balance can be disallowed ITO vs. Hiranandani Builders (ITAT Mumbai) [28-10-2015]

Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by Tribunal in Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri (ITAT Mumbai)

The term “before” specified date in section 44AB means “on or before” the specified date. Therefore, though audit report is signed on 30th September 2008 and the requirement of law is to be construed as tax audit report required to be obtained on or before 30th September 2008. Hence, the assessee has obtained tax audit report in time and there is no default u/s 271B. In Prem Chand Nathmal Kothari vs. Kishanlal Bachharaj Vyas & Ors dated 5th April 1975 reported in AIR 1976 Bombay 82 the Bombay High Court, relying on the Chambers Dictionary, held that word ‘before’ means ‘previous to the expiration of’. Therefore, before 30th September, 2008 means before the end of 30th September 2008 Chopra Properties vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)[20-11-15]