2016 (8) TMI 154 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest - borrowed funds which is diverted to the sister concern, without charging interest - Held that - We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest relating to the borrowed funds which is diverted to the sister concern without charging interest. From the above, it is clear that the Tribunal has correctly approached the issue which has been proposed in the present Tax Appeals. When there was no evidence brought on record by the Department for the Tribunal to hold otherwise, we hold that the issue is appropriately concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal has rightly relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation (2008 (2) TMI 19 - Supreme Court ). It is borne out that the advances were either for commercial expediency given to its sister concern or the assessee was having surplus interest free funds. - Decided in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds diverted to sister concern without charging interest.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case is whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the order passed by CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest relating to borrowed funds diverted to the sister concern without charging interest. The revenue challenged the decision of the ITAT regarding the disallowance of interest in the Tax Appeals. The revenue contended that the advances made were not in the nature of loans and were given for business purposes, thus interest should not be disallowed. The Tribunal, however, found in favor of the assessee.

The Assessing Officer observed that the advances were made for business purposes and were not in the nature of loans. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal erred in deleting the disallowance based on a previous assessment year and that the facts of the case were different from the case relied upon by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the advances were made for commercial expediency or due to surplus interest-free funds available with the assessee. They relied on a decision of the High Court to support their position.

The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, held that the Tribunal did not commit any error in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of interest. The Court referred to a previous judgment regarding the allowability of interest on borrowed funds given as interest-free loans to sister concerns. The Court emphasized the concept of commercial expediency and held that the Tribunal's decision was in line with established principles. The Court concluded that the issue was appropriately decided in favor of the assessee and dismissed the Tax Appeals, confirming the ITAT's judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the ITAT, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds diverted to a sister concern without charging interest. The Court emphasized the concept of commercial expediency and business necessity in allowing such expenditures, in line with established legal principles.