Case Law Details

Case Name : EIH Associated Hotels Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
Appeal Number : I.T.A. No. 1503/Mds/2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 17/07/2013
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All ITAT (4213) ITAT Chennai (210)

The first issue in the appeal of the assessee relates to dis-allowance made u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. The Assessing Officer has made dis-allowance to the tune of Rs. 4,32,66,500/-. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 4.6 Lakhs which is fully exempt u/s. 10(34) of the Act. The assessee has made voluntarily dis-allowance of Rs. 45,927/- u/s. 1 4A. The assessee has made fresh investments to the tune of Rs. 9.4 Crores during the year. The Assessing Officer held that the investments have been made from the fresh secured loans obtained during the year by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) after going through the submissions made by the parties has come to the conclusion that the assessee has made investments from its own funds except for the short term investments made in HDFC Cash Management Fund and DSPML Cash Plus Fund in respect of which the amounts were invested from interest bearing funds borrowed from HBSC. The Revenue has not been able to controvert the findings of CIT(Appeals).

We are of the considered opinion that the investments made by the assessee in the subsidiary company are not on account of investment for earning capital gains or dividend income. Such investments have been made by the assessee to promote subsidiary company into the hotel industry. A perusal of the order of the CIT(Appeals) shows that out of total investment of Rs. 64,18,19,775/-, Rs. 63,31,25,715/- is invested in wholly owned subsidiary. This fact supports the case of the assessee that the assessee is not into the business of investment and the investments made by the assessee are on account of business expediency. Any dividend earned by the assessee from investment in subsidiary company is purely incidental. Therefore, the investment made by the assessee in its subsidiary are not to be reckoned for dis-allowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-compute the average value of investment under the provisions of Rule 8D after deleting investments made by the assessee in subsidiary company. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (24919)
Type : Judiciary (9830)
Tags : ITAT Judgments (4392) rule 8D (78) section 14a (225)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *