2015 (1) TMI 1380 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance invoking section 36(1)(iii) - disallowing interest expenditure - Held that - Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the ca e of IT vs. Reliance Utilities & Powers Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), wherein it was held that if there were funds available both interest-free and overdraft and/or loans taken, then a presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest-free funds generated or available with the company, if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. In the present case the investment in office premises is only 1.18% of the own funds of the assessee company in the year under consideration and therefore the presumption would arise that the assessee company has invested its own funds in purchasing the office premises and not used the borrowed funds and therefore, no portion of interest paid on borrowings can be disallowed invoking section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. No justification in the disallowance made u/s.36(1)(iii). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act
- Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act

Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the CIT(A)'s order for the Assessment Year 2006-07 regarding disallowances made under sections 14A and 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The AO disallowed a certain amount under section 14A and interest under section 36(1)(iii). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowance under section 14A but confirming the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii). The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision.

Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act:
The AO disallowed interest under section 36(1)(iii) as the assessee had used borrowed funds to purchase office premises that were not put to use in the relevant year. The disallowed amount was computed at a specific figure. The AR contended that the assessee had enough interest-free funds, capital, and reserves to cover the expenditure, challenging the AO's decision. The Balance Sheet showed significant own funds and interest-free funds available to the assessee. The AR argued that the investment in office premises was a small percentage of the own funds, indicating that the investment was likely made from own funds rather than borrowed funds. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, it was argued that if sufficient interest-free funds were available to cover investments, a presumption arose that the investments were made from interest-free funds. The Tribunal agreed with the AR's arguments, stating that the investment in office premises was minimal compared to the own funds, leading to the conclusion that the assessee used its own funds for the investment. Consequently, the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed in part.

This judgment highlights the meticulous consideration of facts, legal provisions, and precedents to determine the validity of disallowances under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's analysis of the assessee's financial position, investment decisions, and the application of relevant legal principles showcases a thorough and reasoned approach to resolving the dispute.