2017 (4) TMI 1330 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest expenditure - whether investments in sister concerns served any business purpose? - Held that - As categorically recorded by the Tribunal that in the case of the assessee, non-interest bearing funds are more than non interest bearing investments. Further, the assessee had declared more interest income on fixed deposits than the interest paid by him on interest bearing funds. The total non interest bearing funds were to the tune of ₹ 84,82,25,180/- against which the assessee had invested as non interest bearing investments to the tune of ₹ 72,28,15,197/-. It was concluded that the assessee had not deployed interest bearing funds into non interest bearing investments. Assessee is a major share holder and therefore the advance/investments made by assessee in these companies cannot be said to be without commercial expediency. There would be a direct benefit to the assessee if the interest free investments made in these companies results into more profits to these companies and indirectly to the assessee. - Decided against revenue

Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest expenditure on advances to sister concerns.
2. Dispute over the utilization of interest-bearing funds for interest-free investments.
3. Lack of separate account maintenance for interest-bearing and interest-free funds.

Issue 1: Disallowance of interest expenditure on advances to sister concerns:
The case involved the disallowance of interest expenditure by the Assessing Officer under Section 40A(2)(a) and Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer observed that the interest-free advances made to related parties did not serve any business purpose. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this disallowance, stating that the interest-bearing funds were not exclusively used for business purposes. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, noting that the non-interest bearing funds exceeded the non-interest bearing investments. The Tribunal concluded that the interest-free investments had commercial expediency as the assessee was a major shareholder in the companies receiving the advances. The Tribunal found no evidence of deploying interest-bearing funds into non-interest bearing investments, leading to the deletion of the addition on account of disallowance of interest expenditure.

Issue 2: Dispute over the utilization of interest-bearing funds for interest-free investments:
The Tribunal's analysis revealed that the assessee had declared more interest income on fixed deposits than the interest paid on interest-bearing funds. The Tribunal found that the non-interest bearing funds available with the assessee exceeded the non-interest bearing investments. It was observed that the assessee, being a major shareholder in the recipient companies, had a direct benefit from the interest-free investments resulting in increased profits for those companies. The Tribunal concluded that the investments made by the assessee in these companies were not without commercial expediency, as evidenced by the shareholding pattern and potential indirect benefits to the assessee. The Tribunal's findings indicated that there was no improper deployment of interest-bearing funds into non-interest bearing investments.

Issue 3: Lack of separate account maintenance for interest-bearing and interest-free funds:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not maintain separate accounts for interest-bearing and interest-free funds. Despite this, the Tribunal found that the non-interest bearing funds exceeded the non-interest bearing investments, indicating a proper utilization of funds. The Tribunal's analysis emphasized the commercial expediency of the investments made by the assessee in the related companies, considering the shareholding pattern and potential benefits to the assessee. The absence of separate accounts did not impact the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the legitimacy and business necessity of the interest-free investments.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the revenue, as the findings recorded by the Tribunal were deemed legal and not warranting interference. The Court highlighted that no substantial question of law arose, especially considering a similar issue previously adjudicated against the revenue. The judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition on account of disallowance of interest expenditure, emphasizing the commercial expediency and proper utilization of funds in the context of the assessee's investments in related concerns.

← Previous Next →