2016 (11) TMI 1056 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest on account of interest free loan given to its associate company - Held that - From the submission of the assessee we find that the sufficient fund was available with the assessee as discussed above to advance the money to its associate concern. The ld. DR has not brought anything contrary to the arguments of the ld. AR. Therefore in our considered view the authorities below should have disallowed the interest expenses rather than charging interest income on notional basis. In the instant case the interest expense claimed by assessee but AO instead of disallowing the interest has added the interest income on notional basis which was not the dispute from the facts of the case. In this connection we rely in the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rungamatee Trexim (Pvt) Ltd. 2008 (12) TMI 759 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Respectfully following the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court we reverse the orders of Authorities Below and we allow ground of assessee s appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest on interest-free loan given to associate company.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Private Limited Company engaged in sales and services of Ford passenger cars, appealed against the disallowance of interest on an interest-free loan given to its associate company. The Assessing Officer (AO) added a sum of ?5,76,231 to the total income of the appellant based on notional interest income on the loan. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the appellant exhibited a dual policy of taking interest-bearing loans and giving interest-free loans to its sister concern. The appellant contended that the loan was given from its surplus funds and not borrowed funds. The appellant's Authorized Representative argued that the AO should have disallowed the interest expenses claimed by the appellant instead of charging interest income on a notional basis. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, citing a relevant case law and directing the AO to disallow the interest expenses on the money advanced to the associate concern. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in charging interest income on a notional basis and allowed the appellant's appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had surplus funds available to advance money to its associate concern and that the borrowed funds were not utilized for the interest-free loan. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO should have disallowed the interest expenses claimed by the appellant rather than charging interest income on a notional basis. Relying on a decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities and allowed the appellant's appeal, directing the AO accordingly.

The last issue in the appeal, which was general in nature, did not require specific adjudication. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 28/09/2016.