The Bombay High Court has held that no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be made merely on account of short deduction of tax at source and reiterated that a corporate guarantee commission rate of 0.5% is justified for loans availed by associated enterprises. A Division Bench comprising Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla partly admitted the Revenue’s appeal in the case of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. for AY 2010-11, while rejecting most of the questions raised by the department.

The Revenue challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on multiple issues, including disallowance of carriage fees and channel placement fees under Section 40(a)(ia), transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantees issued to associated enterprises, and disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.

While examining the issue of short deduction of tax at source, the High Court noted that the controversy was already settled by its recent decision in Media Worldwide Ltd. The Court observed that several High Courts had consistently held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted in cases involving short deduction of TDS.

“In case of short deduction of tax at source, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted.”

Since the Revenue’s challenge on carriage fees and channel placement fees was intrinsically linked to the issue of TDS deduction, the Court held that those questions had become merely academic and did not require further consideration.

On the transfer pricing dispute relating to corporate guarantees issued by the assessee to its associated enterprises, the Revenue argued that the commission should be charged at 3% as determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer. However, the Court relied upon its earlier ruling in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. and reiterated that a corporate guarantee cannot be equated with a bank guarantee.

“One cannot equate giving of a bank guarantee to giving a corporate guarantee.”

The Court observed that the commercial considerations and risks involved in issuing a corporate guarantee are distinct from those applicable to a bank guarantee and therefore upheld the Tribunal’s view that a commission rate of 0.5% was appropriate.

The High Court also rejected the Revenue’s challenge to the deletion of interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). It noted that the assessee’s own funds and other non-interest-bearing funds were admittedly higher than the investments made in tax-free securities. Following the decisions in Morgan Stanley India Capital Pvt. Ltd. and South Indian Bank Ltd., the Court held that a presumption would arise that the investments were made out of interest-free funds.

However, with respect to the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the Court found that a substantial question of law arose on whether disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted only to investments that actually yielded exempt income during the relevant year. Accordingly, the appeal was admitted solely on that issue.

As a result, the Bombay High Court declined to entertain the Revenue’s challenge on the issues of short deduction of TDS, corporate guarantee commission and interest disallowance under Section 14A, while admitting the appeal only on the limited question relating to computation of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii).

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below.