9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 696 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - Held that - We find that this issue stands settled in view of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.(2015 (11) TMI 342 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) wherein at para 16 of the order it was categorically held that where the funds/reserves were sufficient to cover interest free advances, the presumption that would arise was that the investments were made out of interest free funds generated or available with the company. Thus we find merit in the contention of the assessee that in view of the sufficient interest free own funds available with the asessee, the investments in the present case are to be presumed to have been made out of the same. Further once it has been held that the investments have been made by utilizing the own interest free funds of the assessee, it automatically means that for the purpose of making the investments, no interest expenditure has been incurred by the assessee. When no interest expenditure have been incurred by the assessee, issue of allowance of the same under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act does not arise at all, since section 36(1)(iii) of the Act deals with the circumstances or the conditions subject to which interest expenditure are to be allowed. Since in the present case, the investments have been presumed to made out of own funds, clearly no interest expenditure has been incurred for making the same and, therefore, no question of allowability/disallowability of the same arises under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue in this appeal is the disallowance of ?4,94,811/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had given an advance of ?1.05 crores for the purchase of shares, which the Assessing Officer (AO) considered non-business in nature. Consequently, the AO disallowed the interest attributable to the advance at 12% per annum, amounting to ?4,94,811/-, relying on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abhishek Industries Limited, 286 ITR 1 (P&H). The assessee contended before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] that it had sufficient own funds and relied on the judgment of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of BCL Industries & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT, which followed the decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and CIT Vs. Kapsons Associates. These judgments established that if sufficient own funds are available, the presumption is that investments are made out of these own funds. However, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee's contention and upheld the disallowance, stating that the advances were for non-business purposes. Before the ITAT, the assessee reiterated that it had sufficient own funds, pointing to the Balance Sheet, which showed Shareholders Funds amounting to approximately ?20.88 crores as on 31.3.2010. The assessee argued that this was more than sufficient to cover the investment of ?1.05 crores and relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., which held that where enough own funds are available, the presumption is that the investment was made out of these funds. The Departmental Representative (DR) countered that the reliance on Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was misplaced, as the High Court in that case first established that the advance met the criteria of commercial expediency. The DR argued that without establishing the commercial expediency of the advance in the present case, the presumption of using own funds could not be applied. The ITAT, after hearing both parties, noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds amounting to ?20.88 crores. The ITAT referred to the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., which held that if sufficient own funds are available, the presumption is that investments are made out of these funds. The ITAT also referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utility & Power Limited, which upheld the same principle. The ITAT concluded that since the assessee had sufficient own funds, the investments were presumed to be made out of these funds, and no interest expenditure was incurred for making the investments. Consequently, the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was deemed unwarranted. The ITAT also rejected the DR's argument that the commercial expediency of the advance needed to be established, stating that where own interest-free funds are used, the question of incurring any expenditure does not arise, and thus, the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) do not apply. Conclusion: The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and deleting the disallowance of ?4,94,811/- made under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment emphasized that sufficient own funds negate the need for disallowance of interest, irrespective of the commercial expediency of the investment.
|
