2016 (10) TMI 1242 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement to deduction of interest on loans when assessee has extended interest free loans to directors & sister concerns- Held that - Not only has assessee own funds well covering the loans and advances but in the previous year the advances had gone down. In none of the earlier assessment year viz. by 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 were any disallowance for interest on loans for non-business purpose made. Cases of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RAGHUVIR SYNTHETICS LTD. 2013 (7) TMI 806 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT to be followed. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(iii) for investments in tax-free income assets.
2. Consideration of Board's Circular No. 5/2014 regarding disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D.
3. Disallowance of interest deduction on loans due to lack of nexus between interest-free funds and non-interest bearing advances/loans.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) and 8D(iii):
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's deletion of disallowance under Section 14A for investments yielding tax-free income. The Tribunal held that Section 14A cannot be invoked without actual receipt of exempted income for the assessment year. The appellant argued that Rule 8D(2)(ii) should apply when interest expenses cannot be directly linked to specific income. However, the appellant later withdrew this issue.

Issue 2: Consideration of Board's Circular No. 5/2014:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not considering Circular No. 5/2014, which mandates disallowance under Section 14A even if no exempted income is earned. However, the appellant did not press this issue during the proceedings.

Issue 3: Disallowance of interest deduction on loans:
The appellant sought to add a question regarding disallowance of interest on loans due to the lack of nexus between interest-free funds and non-interest bearing advances/loans. The Tribunal allowed this amendment, and the discussion focused on the balance sheet details to establish the relationship between own funds and loans/advances. The Tribunal cited precedents from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Mumbai High Court to support the assessee's position. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as the issues were already settled by decisions from different High Courts.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as no substantial question of law arose when the issues were already addressed by decisions from multiple High Courts. The Tribunal's findings were upheld based on established legal precedents, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.