2014 (1) TMI 384 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion of interest expenses Held that - The assessee had justifiable reasons for advancing the amounts in its capacity as a prudent businessman - At any rate, notional interest cannot be added to the taxable income - the interest paid by the assessee pertains to the amount of Rs.20 crores borrowed from GE Capital at an interest rate of 7.5% p.a. This amount was directly advanced on the same date to Lakshdeep Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. from whom it had received interest @ 10% - no part of the borrowed funds were utilised for giving interest free advances so as to disallow any part of the interest paid by the assessee - The order of the CIT(A) with regard to factum of non-utilisation of the interest bearing funds for giving interest free advances upheld - the Revenue has not able to made out a case for disallowing the claim of interest paid by the assessee Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals by the Revenue regarding assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, involving the disallowance of interest expenses on advances paid to certain parties without business expediency.

Analysis:
The Assessing Officer contended that the assessee should have charged interest at 12% on loans advanced to parties, deeming the arrangement as sham due to lack of proper agreements and interest charges. Consequently, the Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenses totaling Rs.1,22,86,301/- for A.Y. 2005-2006 and Rs.1,01,59,364/- for A.Y. 2006-2007, asserting that the interest paid was not related to the assessee's business activities.

Upon appeal, the CIT(A) acknowledged the legitimate reasons behind the advances made by the assessee as a prudent businessman. The CIT(A) clarified that no notional interest income was added to the taxable income and overturned the disallowance by emphasizing that the borrowed funds were not utilized for interest-free advances. Specifically, for A.Y. 2005-2006, it was highlighted that the borrowed amount was directly advanced to another entity at a higher interest rate, demonstrating the proper utilization of funds.

The Revenue's arguments were refuted as the learned CIT(A)'s findings remained unchallenged by the Revenue's representative. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that there was no evidence of borrowed funds being used for interest-free advances, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals. The Orders passed by the CIT(A) were upheld, and the appeals by the Revenue were rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's claims of disallowing interest expenses, as the assessee had valid reasons for the advances made, and the utilization of borrowed funds was appropriately demonstrated. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence and upheld the principle that notional interest cannot be added to taxable income without proper justification.