2019 (4) TMI 963 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest on term loan paid by the assessee company on the loan raised from the Bank - allegation that raised fund had not been used for its business purposes - interest free funds as sufficient to meet the Investments - HELD THAT - Assessee referred to the balance sheet of the assessee-company which shows that assessee-company has share capital and unsecured loans to the tune of ₹ 16.92 crores. The assessee has interest free unsecured loans in a sum. Thus, assessee has sufficient interest free funds available, then presumption would arise that loan given by the assesseecompany to the subsidiary company, would be out of the interest free funds generated as are available with the assessee-company. When interest free funds were sufficient to meet the Investments above, no disallowance could be made against the assessee. We are of the view that addition is wholly unjustified. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Disallowed interest on term loan diverted to another company.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the disallowance of interest on a term loan paid by the assessee company, which was diverted to another entity. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had taken a term loan and diverted the funds to another company as an interest-free advance, resulting in the disallowance of the interest paid on the loan. The assessee explained that it saved rent expenses by advancing the loan to the other company, which was a subsidiary. The CIT(A) did not accept the explanation, stating that the loan was utilized to repay the outstanding loan of the holding company of the assessee. The CIT(A) also highlighted discrepancies in the agreements involved, leading to the confirmation of the addition.

The counsel for the assessee argued that the company had sufficient interest-free funds available to justify the loan given to the subsidiary company. Referring to the balance sheet, it was shown that the company had significant interest-free funds, supporting the presumption that the loan to the subsidiary was made from these funds. The counsel cited a previous ITAT decision and a Bombay High Court ruling to support the argument that when interest-free funds were adequate to cover investments, no disallowance should be made. The Tribunal considered these arguments and decided that the addition of disallowed interest was unjustified, ultimately allowing the appeal of the assessee.

The Tribunal relied on legal precedents to support its decision, citing cases where investments made from interest-free funds were deemed allowable. The balance sheet of the assessee company played a crucial role in establishing the availability of interest-free funds, leading to the conclusion that the disallowance of interest was unwarranted. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the addition, thereby ruling in favor of the assessee.