2014 (1) TMI 1283 - AT - Income Tax

Deletion made u/s 36(i)(iii) of the Act Disallowance on interest free loan Held that - The contention of the assessee that it has sufficient interest-free funds and law is well settled that if the interest-free funds are available with the assessee, then disallowance in respect of the advances made to sister-concern is not justified Relying upon CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY if the interest free-fund is more than the borrowed fund, then no disallowance of interest is called for - the AO is directed to verify whether the assessee is having sufficient interest-free funds to give advances to sister-concerns Decided in favour of Revenue. Deletion made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act Payment made without deducting TDS at the time of making payment Held that - The CIT(A) has decided the issue after following the decision in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, Visakhapatnam 2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM - which has been admittedly declared as not a good law by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court - assessee contended that even otherwise also no disallowance is called for as the expenditure is merely a reimbursement, therefore no provisions of tax deduction at source would be applicable - This being a new contention raised before the Tribunal - this issue requires to be redecided by the AO in the light of the contention of the assessee that the expenditure as incurred was a reimbursement, therefore tax was not to be required to be deducted matter remitted back to the AO for Fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 63,26,146 under section 36(1)(iii) for interest-free loan.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 20,00,000 under section 40(a)(ia) for payment to MPSIDC.
3. Upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of Rs. 63,26,146 under section 36(1)(iii) for interest-free loan:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition made under section 36(1)(iii) by the CIT(A) for the interest-free loan given by the assessee to its sister concerns. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in relying on previous decisions and that each assessment year should be considered separately. However, the assessee contended that it had sufficient interest-free funds to support the advances given. The ITAT, after considering the arguments and case laws cited, found merit in the assessee's contention. Referring to judgments by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, the ITAT held that if the interest-free funds available with the assessee exceed the borrowed funds, no disallowance of interest is justified. The ITAT directed the AO to verify the availability of interest-free funds and decide accordingly, allowing the ground in favor of the assessee for statistical purposes.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition of Rs. 20,00,000 under section 40(a)(ia) for payment to MPSIDC:
The second issue revolved around the deletion of the addition made under section 40(a)(ia) by the CIT(A) for a payment made to MPSIDC without TDS deduction. The Revenue argued that the deletion was based on a decision declared as not good law by the Jurisdictional High Court. On the other hand, the assessee contended that the payment was a reimbursement and hence not subject to TDS provisions. The ITAT observed that the issue required further examination in light of the new contention raised by the assessee regarding the nature of the expenditure. Therefore, the ITAT remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing to determine if the expenditure was indeed a reimbursement, in line with previous decisions by the Coordinate Benches. The ground of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.

Issue 3: Upholding the order of the Assessing Officer:
The third issue involved the contention that the CIT(A) should have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. However, the ITAT did not provide detailed analysis or reasoning on this issue in the judgment.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the Revenue on the second issue for statistical purposes, remanding it back to the AO for fresh consideration. The ITAT also directed the AO to verify the availability of interest-free funds in the first issue and decide accordingly, allowing the ground in favor of the assessee. The judgment did not provide detailed analysis on the third issue regarding upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.