2016 (7) TMI 1037 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that - As in CIT vs. Holcim India Pvt. 2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT holds that the impugned section 14A disallowance does not apply in absence of exempt income since the same is to be made in relation to the latter one. We are of the view that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable on this score alone. It further emanates that the assessee has not made any investment for earning its exempt income in the two impugned assessment years. This is followed by the crucial appellate finding that it had sufficient reserves and surpluses in the corresponding assessment year of investments exceeding the latter sums. The hon ble jurisdictional high court in CIT vs. Torrent Power Ltd. (2014 (6) TMI 185 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) negates applicability of section 14A disallowance in such an instance. The Revenue fails to point out any exception thereto in the course of hearing. This former issue is accordingly decided in assessee s favour Interest disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) - Held that - It has come on record that the assessee had its disposal sufficient interest free funds in excess of the impugned advances to its sister concerns. The CIT(A) observed hereinabove that the assessing authority does not make out a case of diversion of business funds towards the impugned loans hands advances. The Revenue fails to rebut these crucial findings in the course of hearing before us. We do not deem it appropriate to venture much in a detailed factual investigation on this count alone. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Section 14A disallowance
2. Interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii)

Section 14A Disallowance:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowances made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowances based on the availability of interest-free funds for investments. The appellant, a builder/developer and trader, did not have any exempt income in the relevant assessment years. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was vague and presumptive, as there were no investments for earning tax-free income in those years. The CIT(A) highlighted the substantial interest-free funds available with the appellant, which covered both investments and advances. Citing relevant case laws, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowances. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the absence of exempt income and the availability of interest-free funds justified the deletion of disallowances.

Interest Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii):
The second issue pertained to interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenses for charging rates lower than 15% on advances. The CIT(A) noted that the loans and advances were given for business purposes and that the appellant had sufficient interest-free funds to cover investments and advances. The CIT(A) referred to relevant court decisions supporting the appellant's stance. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had surplus interest-free funds exceeding the advances to sister concerns, and there was no evidence of diversion of business funds. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the interest disallowances. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the deletions made by the CIT(A).

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues, emphasizing the absence of exempt income, the availability of interest-free funds, and the business purpose of loans and advances. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete the disallowances, citing relevant legal principles and factual findings.