Four Important Verdicts On S. 14A/ Rule 8D, JV Agreement + Development Agreement Transfer

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.

CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 14A + Rule 8D: No disallowance can be made if AO does not record satisfication with reference to accounts that assessee's claim is improper. However, if Rule 8D applies, assessee's claim that interest is not disallowable on ground of "own funds" is not acceptable

The decisions relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of Tin Box Co. 260 ITR 637 (Del), Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), Suzlon Energy Ltd. 354 ITR 630 (Guj) and East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. 224 ITR 624 (SC) could not be now applicable, if we apply and compute the disallowance under Rule 8D of the Rules. The said Rule in sub Rule (2) specifically prescribes the mode and method for computing the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Thus, the interpretation of clause (ii) to sub Rule (2) to Rule 8D of the Rules by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal is not sustainable. The said clause expressly states that where the assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest in the previous year and the interest paid is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt then the formula prescribed would apply

Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

S. 14A & Rule 8D cannot be interpreted to mean that the entire tax exempt income can be disallowed

By no stretch of imagination can Section 14A or Rule 8D be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in Section 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing expenditure "incurred by the assessee in relation to the tax exempt income". This proportion or portion of the tax exempt income surely cannot swallow the entire amount as has happened in this case

CIT vs. M/s SMSL-UANRCL (JV) (Bombay High Court)

Even if contract is awarded to the Joint Venture, the income is assessable only in the hands of the person which has executed the work

The ITAT has as a matter of fact found that the assessee/ joint venture did not execute the contract work and the said work was done by one of its constituents namely SMS Infrastructure Limited. It is also found that the receipts for the said project work are reflected in the books of account of SMS Infrastructure Limited and in return, said SMS Infrastructure Limited has disclosed that income. The said return was accepted by the Assessing Officer

Fardeen Khan vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 2(47)(v)/(vi): Land ceases to be a capital asset on date of application for conversion into N. A. land. Pursuant to amendment to s. 53A of TOP Act , non-registered development agreement does not result in transfer u/s 2(47)(v). Law in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia 260 ITR 461 (Bom) does not apply after amendment to s. 53A

As provisions of section 53A was amended in 2001 by which additional condition of registration of the written agreement was introduced and since in the instant case the agreement was not registered, the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia 260 ITR 461 with respect to relevant provisions of section 53A applicable in A.Y. 1996-97 will not be applicable to the facts of instant case

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

CIT vs. Hritnik Exports Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 10B(4): All business profits of the undertaking are eligible for deduction and it is not necessary to show that they have a "direct nexus" with the undertaking