2015 (8) TMI 759 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on proportionate notional interest on diversion of interest bearing loan amounts for non business purposes - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Before the ld CIT(A) it has been clearly brought out with evidence that the investments were not made out of borrowed funds. The ld CIT(A) accepted these factual contention and in the absence of any contrary evidence we find no infirmity in the same. In any event the presumption as laid down in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd (2009 (1) TMI 4 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY) that when interest free funds as well as interest bearing funds are available the presumption would arise that interest free loans or investment would have been made out of interest free funds available with or generated by the company is squarely applicable in this case. Share in Kalra Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and Lara medicines Pvt. Ltd. were purchased in the earlier year and investment in SBL Plastics was made at the fag end of the year. The assessee has sufficient interest free funds to cover the investments. - Decided against revenue. Disallowance relating to Conversion Charges paid to MCD - revenue v/s capital expenditure - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The assessee had paid amounts for one time conversion charges and for parking charges at the two outlets, the benefits of which might accrue to the assessee for indefinite period of time yet these were incurred to enable the profit making structures to work more efficiently leaving the source or the profit making structure untouched and moreover, the expenditure were in the nature of levies/taxes paid by an assessee to a government authority for making available the required infrastructure to run the business efficiently and effectively. Therefore, on the facts & circumstances of the case and following Judicial pronouncements, we do not find infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). We are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions. See CIT Vs. J. K. Synthetics Ltd (2008 (12) TMI 21 - DELHI HIGH COURT) and Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. Vs. CIT (1990 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court ) - Decided against revenue. Website development expenses - revenue v/s capital expenditure - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax IV 3 Vs. India-visit. Com Private Limited (2008 (9) TMI 8 - DELHI HIGH COURT), held that the expenditure on website development is allowable as revenue expenditure. Respectfully following the view taken therein we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) - Decided against revenue. Disallowances of claims of depreciation on medical equipments - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Existence and use of these equipment cannot be denied as we have to ignore the statements recorded from the suppliers for the reason that no cross examination was provided to the assessee and the other evidence is in favour of the claim of the assessee.The existence of the asset is accepted by us, though the source of acquisition is under a cloud. The fact that the equipments have been used is proved by the receipt of substantial income on these equipment. Hence both the conditions for grant of depreciation have been fulfilled. Thus depreciation has to be granted on these assets. Thus we uphold the order of the ld CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the revenue. - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of proportionate notional interest on diversion of interest-bearing loan amounts for non-business purposes.
2. Treatment of conversion charges paid to MCD as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.
3. Classification of website development expenses as revenue or capital expenditure.
4. Disallowance of depreciation claims on medical equipment due to alleged bogus purchases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Proportionate Notional Interest:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed Rs. 18,11,964/- as interest paid, arguing that the assessee diverted interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes. The first appellate authority referenced the Bombay High Court decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited, which states that when both interest-free and interest-bearing funds are available, the presumption is that interest-free loans or investments are made from interest-free funds. The investments in question were made from the assessee's own funds and not from borrowed funds. The appellate authority concluded that there was no nexus between the loan funds and the investments. The Tribunal upheld this finding, dismissing the revenue's ground.

2. Treatment of Conversion Charges Paid to MCD:
The AO treated the conversion charges paid to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) as capital expenditure. The first appellate authority, however, considered these charges as revenue expenditure, citing the ITAT Delhi's decision in DCIT Vs. Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd, which held that such charges are allowable as revenue expenses since they do not create a new asset but enable the profit-making structure to work more efficiently. The Tribunal upheld this view and dismissed the revenue's ground.

3. Classification of Website Development Expenses:
The AO classified website development expenses as capital expenditure. The first appellate authority, referencing the Delhi High Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax IV 3 Vs. India-visit. Com Private Limited, held that these expenses are revenue in nature. The Tribunal upheld this classification and dismissed the revenue's ground.

4. Disallowance of Depreciation Claims on Medical Equipment:
The AO disallowed depreciation claims on medical equipment, arguing that the purchases were bogus based on statements from suppliers who denied supplying the equipment. The first appellate authority granted relief, noting that the equipment was financed by GE Capital Services India and insured by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., indicating the equipment's existence. The Tribunal noted that the statements from suppliers were recorded without cross-examination, reducing their evidentiary value. It was also observed that the assessee generated substantial income from these equipments, proving their existence and use. The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision to allow depreciation, dismissing the revenue's ground.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the revenue, upholding the first appellate authority's decisions on all grounds. The judgments emphasized the importance of proper evidence and cross-examination in disallowance cases and reinforced the principles of treating certain expenditures as revenue rather than capital in nature.