Facts of the Case

The present appeals were filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11 May 2018 concerning Assessment Years 2009–10 and 2010–11.

The case involved two primary issues:

  1. Whether a drilling rig qualifies as a “ship” under Section 115VD of the Act.
  2. Whether the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was correctly applied by the Assessing Officer.

The Assessing Officer had invoked Rule 8D treating it as mandatory and made disallowances despite the assessee having already made a partial disallowance.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a drilling rig falls within the definition of a qualifying ship under Section 115VD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  2. Whether Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 can be applied automatically without recording satisfaction under Section 14A.

Petitioner’s (Revenue’s) Arguments

  • The Revenue contended that:
    • A drilling rig should not be treated as a qualifying ship under Section 115VD.
    • The Assessing Officer correctly applied Rule 8D for computing disallowance under Section 14A.
    • Rule 8D should be treated as mandatory once exempt income is earned.

Respondent’s (Assessee’s) Arguments

  • The assessee argued that:
    • The issue of drilling rigs being treated as qualifying ships was already settled in its favour by earlier Delhi High Court judgments.
    • Rule 8D cannot be applied mechanically; the Assessing Officer must first record dissatisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee’s claim.
    • The disallowance made by the assessee itself was reasonable and justified.

Court’s Findings / Order

Issue 1: Drilling Rig as Qualifying Ship (Section 115VD)

  • The Court noted that the issue was already decided against the Revenue in earlier judgments.
  • It was also noted that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court; hence, the present issue was disposed of subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court decision.

Issue 2: Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D

  • The Court held that:
    • Rule 8D is not mandatory and cannot be applied automatically.
    • The Assessing Officer must record objective satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee’s claim before invoking Rule 8D.
    • In the present case, no such satisfaction was recorded.
  • Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs DCIT (2017) 7 SCC 421, which clarified the legal position.
  • Since the statutory requirement was not fulfilled, the Court refused to interfere with the Tribunal’s findings.

Final Order

  • Appeals were disposed of without issuing notice on the second issue.
  • No order as to costs.

Important Clarification

  • Rule 8D is only a method of computation (best judgment assessment) and not a compulsory provision.
  • The recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional requirement before invoking Rule 8D.
  • Mechanical application of Rule 8D is legally unsustainable.

Sections Involved

  • Section 14A – Expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income
  • Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962
  • Section 115VD – Qualifying ship
  • Section 260A – Appeal to High Court

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2018:DHC:7122-DB/SKN02112018ITA12342018.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.