Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : PCIT Vs TATA Industries Ltd. (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Income Tax Appeal No.661 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/01/2025
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

PCIT Vs TATA Industries Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

Summary: The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 2004–05. The revenue raised three substantial questions of law, primarily focusing on disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act and treatment of debenture issue expenses. The Court observed that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned, a position supported by multiple decisions from coordinate benches, including Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd. Vs. PCIT. Since the Tribunal’s findings adhered to established legal precedents, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose on this issue. On the debenture issue expenses, the Court evaluated whether such expenses should be claimed in one assessment year or spread over two years. Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in CIT Vs. Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. and Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. Joint CIT, the Court concluded that the choice to claim the expenses fully in the year incurred rested with the assessee, provided the expenditure was recognized as revenue in nature. Given the absence of any tax rate discrepancy between the relevant years, the Court found no merit in the revenue’s appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the Tribunal’s order.

Issue 1: Disallowance Under Section 14A Cannot Exceed the Exempt Income Earned

Background: Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income. In the case of TATA Industries Ltd., the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had restricted the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned during the year, which was Rs. 6.16 crores, even though the respondent-assessee had disallowed Rs. 39 crores in its return of income. The revenue, however, sought to disallow a higher amount of Rs. 75.20 crores.

Legal Issue: The question that arose was whether the disallowance under Section 14A could exceed the exempt income earned during the year. The ITAT had upheld the contention of the respondent-assessee that the disallowance should not exceed the exempt income, citing various judicial precedents.

Court’s Ruling: The Bombay High Court referred to several decisions by Co-ordinate Benches of the Court, including:

  • Nirved Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020)
  • Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ajit Ramakant Phatarpekar (2021)
  • Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd. (2019)
  • HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. (2020)
  • Morgan Stanley India Securities Pvt. Ltd. (2020)

The Court confirmed that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income. This is in line with the reasoning that if an assessee earns exempt income, the expenses incurred to earn such income can be disallowed under Section 14A, but the disallowance cannot exceed the amount of income that is exempt.

Issue 2: Revenue Cannot Compel Assessee to Spread Fees for Non-Convertible Debentures

Background: The second issue in the case relates to whether the fees incurred for issuing non-convertible debentures (NCDs) should be treated as an expense in one year or spread over the tenure of the debenture. The Revenue contended that the fees for issuing NCDs, including upfront fees and brokerage, should be spread over the period of the debenture. However, the respondent-assessee claimed the entire expense in the assessment year 2004-05.

Legal Issue: The question here was whether the expense related to the issue of NCDs should be claimed entirely in one year or spread over the term of the debenture. The Revenue’s stance was that the expense should be spread over the period during which the NCDs were issued, citing the Supreme Court decision in Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997), which held that such costs should be amortized over the duration of the debenture.

Court’s Ruling: The Bombay High Court ruled that while the expenditure incurred for issuing NCDs is a revenue expense, it could be claimed in one year or spread over the years, at the assessee’s discretion. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (2015), which stated that revenue expenditure should generally be allowed in the year it is incurred, but it could be spread over multiple years at the option of the assessee.

The Court referred to the case of Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (1958), which stated that if the tax rate is the same for two years, the timing of the deduction in either year would not affect the overall tax liability. Thus, it was irrelevant whether the expense was claimed in the year the debenture was issued or spread over multiple years.

The Court further emphasized that since the respondent-assessee opted to claim the expense in the assessment year 2004-05, the Revenue could not compel the assessee to spread it over the two years. This was consistent with earlier rulings that allowed the assessee discretion in choosing the timing of claiming the expense.

Implication: The ruling reaffirms that revenue expenditures incurred for issuing NCDs can be claimed entirely in the year they are incurred if the assessee chooses to do so. This judgment also clarifies that the Revenue cannot force the assessee to spread the expense over multiple years unless the assessee opts for such treatment.

Conclusion:

The Bombay High Court in PCIT vs. TATA Industries Ltd. addresses two important issues regarding tax treatment. The first issue, relating to disallowance under Section 14A, is settled in favor of restricting the disallowance to the amount of exempt income earned. The second issue, regarding the treatment of fees for issuing NCDs, is decided in favor of the assessee, allowing them to claim the expense in the year it was incurred without being compelled to spread it over the life of the debenture.

These rulings provide important clarifications on the application of Section 14A and the treatment of revenue expenses in corporate taxation, ensuring that taxpayers have clarity in their financial reporting and tax filings.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the said Act”) for assessment year 2004-05 by the appellant-revenue, to challenge an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) dated 20 July 2016, on various questions of law but only following substantial questions of law were pressed before this Court :-

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW

“(1) On the facts and in the circumstances o f the case and in law, the Honble ITAT erred in deleting the disalowance u/s 14A of gross interest expenditure of Rs. 75,20,81,001/- which is incurred towards earning tax free income ignoring the facts that such interest expenditure was on account  investment in subsidiary companies/ controled companies yielding tax free dividend for the purpose of computing income from Business or Profession and also for computing the Adjusted Book Profit u/s 115JB o f the Act.

(7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honble ITAT was right in limiting the disalowance u/s 14A to exempt income earned during the year wherein the assessee itself had suo moto apportioned and disalowed Rs.39 crores u/s 14A in the return of income filed wherein exempt income earned during the year was Rs.6.16 crores.

(8) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honble ITAT erred in deleting the disalowance of expenditure of Rs.22,14,030/- incurred as Debenture issue expenses for the purpose of computing income from business or profession considering it as revenue in nature which should have been spread over the period of debenture as per the decision of the Honble Supreme Court decision given in the case o f Madras Industrial Investments case (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC).

2. The other questions, though raised, have not been pressed before

3. We propose to first deal with Question 7, which deals with the Tribunal’s findings restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income of Rs.6.16 crores, although the respondent-assessee in the return of income disallowed Rs. 39 crores under Section 14A of the said Act with regard to interest expenditure. In the assessment order, the said disallowance was made to the tune of Rs.75.20 crore. The respondent-assessee before the Tribunal urged that disallowance made by them was not in accordance with law in the light of various decisions which have taken the view that disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income and based on the same, although they themselves have disallowed more than the exempted income, disallowance should be restricted to the extent of the exempted income of Rs.6.16 crores. The Tribunal accepted the said contention of the respondent-assessee which is now challenged in the present appeal.

4. The issue whether disallowance under Section 14A can exceed the exempt income is concluded by series of judgment of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court namely:-

(i) Nirved Traders Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax’ (2020) 421 ITR 142 (Bom)

(ii) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa Vs. Ajit Ramakant Phatarpekar  (2021) 124 taxmann.com 124 (Bombay)

(iii) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs. Reliance Ports and Terminals Ltd. Income Tax Appeal No.1034 of 2017 dated 19 November 2019

(iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd.  (2020) 421 ITR 125 (Bom)

(v) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 V Morgan Stanley India Securities P. Ltd  Income Tax Appeal No.1701 of 2017 dated 21 January 2020

5. In view of the above, since issue is concluded by series of decisions of this Court, no substantial question of law can be said to arise on the said

6. Insofar as question 1 is concerned, same is inconsequential since it gets eclipsed while considering question no.7 raised in the appeal memo.

7. With respect to question 8, it deals with whether the upfront fees and brokerage fees for issuing non-convertible debentures should be allowed fully in the assessment year 2004-05 or should be spread over two years for which non-convertible debentures were issued. There is no dispute between the parties that expenses have to be allowed as a deduction, but the only issue is whether it should be allowed fully in one year or it should be spread over a period of two years. The rate of tax for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 is same. This Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagri Mils Co. Ltd.  6  (1958) 33 ITR 681 (Bom) has observed that if the tax rate is uniform for two years then, the deduction whether claimed by the assessee in the year one or two is of no consequence to the revenue. This decision has been subsequently followed by various Courts and the last of the decision following the decision of Nagri Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) is in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji Goa Vs. Rajesh Prakash Timblo (2019) 106 taxmann.com 255 (Bom). This view also finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries (2013) 358 ITR 295. In our view, respectfully following the decision of the Supreme Court and the Co-ordinates Bench of this Court, no substantial question of law arises on this issue.

8. In any case, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax’ (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) has been subsequently considered and explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax’ (2015) 372 ITR 605 (SC) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the revenue expenditure is to be allowed in the year in which it is incurred but it could be spread over only at the instance of an assessee. In the present case, since there is no dispute that the expenditure incurred is revenue and the respondent-assessee has opted to claim it in assessment year 2004-05 itself, the appellant-revenue cannot compel the respondent-assessee to claim it over a period of two years. Therefore, even on this count, no substantial question of law arises.

9. In view of the above, no case is made out by the appellant-revenue for admission of the present appeal and, therefore, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

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

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728