2014 (3) TMI 686 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act - Interest paid on secured and unsecured loans - Whether the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the relief in respect of disallowances made u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act Held that - The CIT(A) rightly accepted the contention of the assessee that non-interest bearing funds have been used to make interest free advances, especially when the Assessing Officer had not been able to establish that the interest bearing funds raised by the company were used for making interest free advances - because of the wide gap between the total unsecured loan and the interest free funds available with the company, it cannot be presumed that the interest bearing funds were used for making interest free advances to the group concern by the assessee - the addition made in this regard by the AO is not sustainable which was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) thus, the order of the CIT(A) upheld Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance made under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Nexus between loans taken and interest free advances.
3. Validity of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)'s decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) regarding disallowances made under section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed a certain amount of interest paid on secured and unsecured loans, which the Commissioner partly allowed, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.
2. The key issue revolved around establishing a nexus between the loans taken and interest free advances made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer failed to prove this nexus, leading to the Commissioner's decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner highlighted various factors, such as the non-interest bearing funds available with the company and the nature of business transactions, to support the assessee's contention that interest expenditure was related to the business.
3. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the lack of nexus shown by the Assessing Officer and the reasonable explanation provided by the assessee regarding the utilization of funds for interest free advances. The Tribunal found no ambiguity or valid reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals and the Cross objections filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)'s decision to delete the disallowances made under section 36(1)(ii) based on the lack of established nexus and the reasonable explanation provided by the assessee regarding the utilization of funds.