2014 (11) TMI 1266 - AT - Income Tax

Claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4) - HELD THAT - The Tribunal vide its order 2014 (7) TMI 424 - ITAT MUMBAI after following the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd. 2010 (2) TMI 108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that the assessee was entitled for claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT - Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that if there are funds available, both interest free and overdraft/loans taken, then presumption would arise that investments would be out of the interest free fund generated or available with the company, if, the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. Recently, the Hon ble Bombay High Court again followed the same principle in the case of HDFC 2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Applying the proposition of law laid down in the judicial pronouncements, we found that in the instant case case profit was much more than the investment in the joint venture company therefore the disallowance made by the A. O. by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act was not justified. Accordingly the A. O. directed to delete the same. Addition u/s 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT - We found that the cash profit of the assessee company that have been earned during the year as reduced by the amount of investment in joint venture company, was in excess to the monies advanced to Chafal as on the cut-off date, therefore it can be safely presumed that advance have been given against profits of the year and not out of interest bearing funds. This view has been supported by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Fact that no further advance was given during the year and no disallowance was made in the preceding year also supports the case of the assessee. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the action of the A. O. in disallowing the interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) towards notional interest on advances to related party.
3. Disallowance under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Levying of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 73,40,116 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A, arguing that the share capital and reserves were significantly higher than the investments in joint ventures, implying that interest-free funds were used for these investments. The Tribunal considered the assessee's reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd., which supports the view that if interest-free funds are available, they should be presumed to have been used for investments generating exempt income. The Tribunal found that the cash profits of the assessee exceeded the investments in joint ventures, thus justifying the deletion of the disallowance made by the AO.

2. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) towards notional interest on advances to related party:
The AO disallowed Rs. 22,81,807 under Section 36(1)(iii), citing interest-free advances to a subsidiary. The assessee argued that these advances were for business expediency, as the subsidiary was promoted to implement a government project. The Tribunal noted that the subsidiary was a 74.5% subsidiary of the assessee, and no fresh advances were made during the year. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munjal Sales Corp., the Tribunal held that since the advances were for business purposes and no disallowance was made in previous years, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was unwarranted.

3. Disallowance under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT vs. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd., which clarified that for claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4), it is not necessary for the assessee to develop the entire infrastructure project. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's activities, such as manufacturing, supplying, and commissioning, were integral to the infrastructure project, thus qualifying for the deduction. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim for deduction under Section 80IA(4).

4. Levying of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal did not provide a detailed discussion on this issue in the judgment. However, given the favorable decisions on the primary grounds of appeal, it can be inferred that the interest levied under Sections 234B and 234C would also be reconsidered in light of the revised taxable income.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the AO to delete the disallowances under Sections 14A and 36(1)(iii) and to grant the deduction under Section 80IA(4). The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the availability of interest-free funds and the business purpose of advances while making disallowances. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 14th November 2014.