2011 (1) TMI 1406 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on car.
2. Disallowance of interest expenses.
3. Allowance of business loss.
4. Disallowance of bad debts.

Summary:

1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Car:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on a car amounting to Rs. 1,94,948/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the claim as the car was registered in the name of a director and not the company. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating the car was purchased with company funds and used for business purposes. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing multiple case laws, and concluded that non-registration under the Motor Vehicles Act does not disentitle the company from claiming depreciation u/s 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. Disallowance of Interest Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 10,97,994/- on account of interest, arguing that the assessee advanced interest-free loans to sister concerns without business purposes. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting the advances were for business purposes and the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, citing the absence of evidence that borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes and referencing the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd., which presumes investments are made from interest-free funds if available.

3. Allowance of Business Loss:
The AO rejected the book results and estimated gross profit, leading to an addition of Rs. 9,49,176/-, due to the assessee's continuous losses and lack of detailed project-wise expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating the accounts were audited without defects and the AO did not justify rejecting the books u/s 145(3). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that low profit alone does not justify rejection of books without specific defects, referencing multiple case laws supporting this view.

4. Disallowance of Bad Debts:
The AO disallowed Rs. 1,01,081/- claimed as bad debts, arguing no recovery action was taken. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, accepting the assessee's explanation that the amounts were sundry balances written off due to claims by parties. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the Revenue did not provide material to dispute the genuineness of the write-off.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds. The order was pronounced on 21-01-2011.