9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 121 - AT - Income TaxGranting loans and advances to subsidiaries /ICD s - interest bearing funds had been diverted in respect of the inter corporate deposit - Held that - On perusal of the loans availed by the assessee, it clearly appears that these loans raised by the assessee are tied up loans for specific purposes such as vehicle loan, cash credits, packing credit etc. . There is no specific adverse finding on diversion of funds by the assessee w.r.t. loans raised by the assessee by both the authorities below. Under such circumstances, presumption will apply that the assessee has utilised its own interest free funds available with it for granting loans and advances to subsidiaries /ICD s and also making investments, wherein we have seen that net owned funds are much higher than combined value of investments as well loans and advances granted by the assessee. The ratio of decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Limited (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) will apply. The additions as sustained by learned CIT(A) stood deleted and relief granted by learned CIT(A) stood confirmed. Disallowance u/s. 41(1) on account of cessation of liabilities - Held that - CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee as the assessee has written back these liabilities in AY 2007-08 except two liabilities firstly payable to Shaft Broadcast Private Limited on the ground that this liability was disputed/contested by the assessee before Hon ble Bombay High Court and secondly liability payable to Mr. Sushant G Mohite wherein part payments was made by the assessee subsequently and partly the same was written back in AY 2007-08. The afore-said claims were made before learned CIT(A) for the first time wherein relief was granted by learned CIT(A) without verification . The AO is directed to make verification of the aforesaid claims so made by the assessee for the first time before learned CIT(A) and if the contentions of the assessee are found to be correct, we find no reason to withhold relief to the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Deletion of addition under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Disallowance of interest on inter-corporate deposit (ICD) given to Classic Credit Ltd. Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition under Section 36(1)(iii): The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had borrowed funds on which heavy interest was paid and advanced funds to subsidiaries and inter-corporate deposits (ICDs), which were marked as doubtful. The AO concluded that there was a violation of Section 36(1)(iii) as the loans were not used for the assessee's business purposes but for the benefit of others. The AO added ?1,59,66,007/- to the assessee's income, citing a discrepancy between the interest paid (22.75%) and the interest recovered (1.4%). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found that the AO's calculation was based on year-end balances and did not consider the actual rates and purposes of the loans. The CIT(A) noted that the loans to subsidiaries were for business purposes and commercial expediency, and the Transfer Pricing Officer had accepted these transactions as arm's length. However, the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of interest on the ICD to Classic Credit Ltd., as the assessee failed to establish its business purpose. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's owned funds were higher than the combined value of investments and loans/advances, and there was no specific adverse finding on the diversion of funds. Applying the presumption that the assessee used its own interest-free funds, the Tribunal deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A). 2. Deletion of Addition under Section 41(1): The AO added ?28,61,468/- as unclaimed liabilities under Section 41(1), observing that the amounts were outstanding for more than two years. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the AO did not provide the assessee with an opportunity to furnish confirmations from the creditors. The CIT(A) found that most liabilities were written back and offered for taxation in AY 2007-08, except for Shaft Broadcast Pvt. Ltd., which was disputed in court, and Mr. Sushant G. Mohite, where part payments were made subsequently. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claims regarding the liabilities written back in AY 2007-08 and the disputed liability. If the claims were found correct, the relief granted by the CIT(A) would be upheld. 3. Disallowance of Interest on Inter-Corporate Deposit (ICD): The AO disallowed the interest on an ICD of ?5,68,50,000/- given to Classic Credit Ltd., marked as doubtful. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to establish the business purpose or that the ICD was from non-interest-bearing funds. The Tribunal, considering the overall funds and the presumption of using interest-free funds, deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A). Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and partly allowed the appeal of the revenue for statistical purposes. The AO was directed to verify the claims regarding liabilities written back and the disputed liability. The relief granted by the CIT(A) was upheld, and the additions under Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 41(1) were deleted based on the Tribunal's findings.
|
