2009 (12) TMI 720 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 5,02,890 towards excess interest paid by the assessee.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 92,60,000 towards share capital u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 5,02,890 towards excess interest paid by the assessee

The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee-company had paid interest in excess of 12% to certain parties while charging only 12% on loans given. The AO disallowed the excess interest payment of Rs. 5,02,890, citing lack of business expediency and invoking sections 37(1) and 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted this addition, noting that the AO failed to prove any nexus between the interest-bearing loans taken and given by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the disallowance under sections 37(1) or 36(1)(iii) can only be made if it is proved that the loans were not used wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal found no merit in the Department's grounds and rejected ground Nos. 1 to 5.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition of Rs. 92,60,000 towards share capital u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act

The AO added Rs. 92,60,000 as unexplained share capital u/s 68, as the assessee-company failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribers. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that the assessee had provided complete details of the share subscribers, including income-tax returns, confirmations, and cheque payments. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Lovely Exports P. Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., which state that once the identity of the share subscribers is established, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee-company. The Tribunal found the Department's reliance on the Beautix case inapplicable, as the facts differed. Ground Nos. 6 to 8 were thus rejected.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed.

The order pronounced in the open court on December 9, 2009.