2019 (4) TMI 549 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) - allegation to use interest bearing fund in respect of capital work-in-progress - proof of interest free funds available with the assessee in the shape of share capital, reserves and surplus - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) has not recorded any finding rather simply relied upon the order of the CIT(A) in the Asstt.Year 2013-14. This order did not meet approval of the Tribunal in the Asstt.Year 2013-14. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the disallowance considering interest free funds available with the assessee in the shape of share capital, reserves and surplus, as well as net revenue from operations, we are of the view that alleged investment in WIP could be assumed as carried from these surplus funds. No notional interest ought to be calculated for capiialization. In order to fortify ourselves, we would like to refer to the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of capital work-in-progress.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the disallowance of interest expenditure by the ld.CIT(A) in the Asstt.Year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer observed that interest expenditure was required to be disallowed on work-in-progress, based on the rate of 9.75%. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, citing a similar decision in the Asstt.Year 2013-14. The appellant argued that no new term loan was taken during the year, and the investment was made from interest-free funds. The appellant also highlighted its capital structure and reliance on a High Court decision regarding interest-free advances. The appellant's submissions were considered, emphasizing the availability and source of funds. The ld.CIT(A) directed the assessing officer to calculate interest on capital work-in-progress at 9.75%. The Tribunal noted the lack of findings by the ld.CIT(A) and the reliance on a previous order that was not approved by the Tribunal. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision where the disallowance of interest on capital work-in-progress was reversed due to the availability of interest-free funds. As there were no material changes, the Tribunal decided to delete the disallowance based on the previous ruling.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the impugned disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of capital work-in-progress for the Asstt.Year 2014-15. The decision was based on the lack of independent findings by the ld.CIT(A) and the Tribunal's previous ruling in a similar case. The Tribunal emphasized the availability of interest-free funds and the lack of necessity for notional interest calculation. The appellant's arguments regarding its capital structure and reliance on legal precedents were considered in reaching the decision to delete the disallowance. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the principles established in previous cases and upheld the appellant's contentions regarding the source of funds for the investment in work-in-progress.