2015 (1) TMI 877 - HC - Income Tax

Interest on interest free advances/loans - ITAT deleted disallowance - Held that - Question of law involved in this appeal is already concluded in favour of the assessee as decided in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income -Tax (Appeals) and Another 2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT stating that Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order on interest expenditure disallowance.

Analysis:
The appellant-revenue challenged the Tribunal's order dated 22.02.2005, which partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee regarding the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to &8377; 17,38,362 for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenditure as the assessee had provided interest-free advances to parties, which were considered diversion of interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, leading to the assessee filing an appeal before the Tribunal, resulting in the impugned order. The substantial question of law formulated by the Court was whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of interest on interest-free advances/loans.

The advocate for the appellant-revenue argued that the question of law was settled in favor of the assessee by the Apex Court in a previous case. The Court examined the issue and referred to a decision by the Delhi High Court regarding the nexus between expenditure and business purpose. It emphasized that the Revenue cannot dictate what constitutes reasonable expenditure for a businessman and must consider commercial expediency from the assessee's viewpoint. The Court clarified that interest on borrowed loans advanced to a sister concern could be allowed based on commercial expediency, depending on the circumstances of each case. The Court set aside previous judgments and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision.

Considering the precedent set by the Apex Court and the principles outlined in the referenced decision, the Court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowance of interest on interest-free advances/loans. As the question of law was settled and did not require elaborate reasoning, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision and affirmed that the interest disallowance was not justified in this case.