2009 (7) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of Interest Diversion of funds to subsidiary company held that that no portion of the interest paid by the assessee on its borrowed funds can be disallowed on the ground that a portion thereof has been diverted to subsidiary company and that that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the assessee company in debiting the interest paid to the bank as a revenue expenditure merely because it had given further loan of Rs.40,00,000/- to its subsidiary company

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loans given by the assessee company to its subsidiary company were from borrowed funds.
2. Whether there was commercial expediency for granting the loan to the subsidiary company.
3. Whether the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the loans given by the assessee company to its subsidiary company were from borrowed funds:

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) concluded that the additional loans raised by the assessee company were to advance an interest-free loan to its subsidiary company, and consequently disallowed part of the interest claimed by the assessee. The I.T.A.T. held that the authorities had not established any nexus between the borrowed funds and the interest-free loans to the subsidiary. The assessee provided detailed documentation showing that the loans to the subsidiary were given on different dates and were preceded by sufficient funds from the assessee's own resources. The Tribunal accepted these facts and found that the loans to the subsidiary were not from borrowed funds.

2. Whether there was commercial expediency for granting the loan to the subsidiary company:

The counsel for the assessee argued that the loans to the subsidiary were for commercial purposes and not for personal use by any director. The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) held that if a loan is given for commercial expediency, the interest on borrowed funds used for such a loan should be allowed as a deduction. The Court emphasized that the Revenue should not interfere with the business decisions of the assessee. The High Court, applying this principle, held that since the Revenue did not prove that the loans were for personal benefit, the loans were deemed to be for commercial purposes. Therefore, the interest on borrowed funds should be allowed as a deduction.

3. Whether the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority:

The counsel for the assessee contended that the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority, and its findings should not be challenged unless they are perverse. The Supreme Court in K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Sudarshan Silks and Sarees vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reiterated that the High Court should respect the findings of the Tribunal unless they are perverse. The High Court agreed with this view and held that the Revenue is bound by the Tribunal's findings.

Conclusion:

The High Court answered the reference by holding that the Tribunal was correct in holding that no portion of the interest paid by the assessee on its borrowed funds could be disallowed on the ground that a portion thereof had been diverted to the subsidiary company. The Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the interest claimed as a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal's findings were upheld as final and binding.