9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 749 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of interest AO made disallowance of interest on borrowed funds because the same were utilized in making interest free advances to two of its subsidiary companies Held that - As concluded from the facts the amounts advanced by assessee to the above mentioned five concerns are out of internal accruals or out of profits earned by assessee by way of sale of shares or by way of consideration received on account of sale of shares. Therefore, assessee is entitled for allowance of interest on borrowed capital which is used for the purpose of business. Appeal decides in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest on capital borrowed for the purpose of business. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Interest on Capital Borrowed for the Purpose of Business: The primary issue in this appeal is the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.10,24,59,637/- paid on capital borrowed for business purposes. The assessee contends that the advances in question were made out of its own resources, not borrowed funds. Background: The original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the Assessing Officer (AO) allowed the interest claim. However, the AO later noticed that interest-free loans were given to subsidiary companies out of borrowed funds, leading to a significant interest liability. Consequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) issued a revision notice under section 263, which was upheld by the Calcutta High Court. The CIT directed the AO to revise the assessment, resulting in the disallowance of the interest claim. CIT(A) Findings: The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, stating that the appellant failed to prove with supporting evidence that the advances were made from its own funds rather than borrowed funds. The CIT(A) rejected the arguments of the appellant and upheld the disallowance. Tribunal's Initial Decision: The Tribunal initially confirmed the lower authorities' actions, leading the assessee to appeal to the Calcutta High Court under section 260A. The High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter, specifically addressing whether the disallowance of interest expenditure was justified and if there was material evidence to support the claim that interest-free loans were given out of borrowed funds. Reconsideration by the Tribunal: Upon reconsideration, the Tribunal examined the detailed financial records and transactions: - For AY 1992-93, the assessee advanced Rs.37.56 crores to its subsidiary Poly Investments Ltd. from the sale proceeds of equity shares of JCT Electronics Ltd. - For AY 1993-94, Rs.12.30 crores were advanced to Chohal Investments Ltd. from the sale proceeds of shares of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. - The Tribunal verified the bank statements, balance sheets, and other financial documents, confirming that the advances were made from the sale proceeds and internal accruals, not borrowed funds. Key Findings: - The advances to subsidiaries and other concerns were primarily from the sale proceeds of shares and internal accruals. - There was no significant increase in the advances during the relevant assessment year, except for minor amounts to Gupta & Syal Ltd. and Kishan Chand Spinning Mills Ltd. - The AO did not disallow interest on borrowed funds in prior and subsequent assessment years, indicating a consistent treatment of such transactions. Legal Principles Applied: The Tribunal emphasized that for disallowance of interest on borrowed funds, there must be a clear nexus between the borrowed funds and the interest-free advances. The Tribunal cited the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, where it was held that if interest-free advances are less than the cash profits generated, it should be presumed that the advances were made out of the profits. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the allowance of interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes. The disallowance was reversed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Final Judgment: The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the orders of the lower authorities are reversed.
|
