9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 74 - HC - Income TaxDeduction of interest paid for the borrowed amount used for business purpose - Loan taken from Bank given to Holding company as Interest free Advance - Addition u/s 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT - Assessee's case that this advance is paid to the holding Company for the investments made by them for securing land to be developed by the assessee.There is a Joint Development Agreement in which the assessee and the holding Company agreed to share profits at the rate of 50% each. Within about two months another Agreement dated 09.06.2009 is entered into by modifying certain clauses in the Joint Development Agreement, where under, the holding Company gets 75% of the Book profits. The Assessing Officer found that the holding Company had borrowed loans from Banks and there was no occasion rather need for the holding Company to take advances from the assessee for the purpose of purchase of the land. Apart from that the Assessing Officer found that the assessee was paying ₹ 42,85,869/- toward operational expenses and in the Ledger Account, this was shown as Joint Venture Share of the holding Company. This fact also led the Assessing Officer to conclude that there was no necessity for the assessee Company to give any advance to the holding Company. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. S.A. Builders vs. CIT 2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT the allowability or otherwise of interest payment under Section 36(1)(iii) depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Currently, the Assessing Officer, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal, on facts held against the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for deduction of interest paid for borrowed amount used for business purpose. 2. Assessment of business purpose and utilization of borrowed funds under a Joint Development Agreement. 3. Impact of unregistered Joint Development Agreement on presumption of diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purpose. 4. Consistency in decision-making regarding deduction of interest payment under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal questioned the permissibility of claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) for interest paid on borrowed funds used for business purposes. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in presuming diversion of funds for non-business purposes without considering the terms of the Joint Development Agreement. Issue 2: The Tribunal, supported by the Revenue, found that the assessee failed to establish commercial expediency in advancing money to the holding Company for business purposes. The CIT(A) emphasized the need to prove business purpose for interest-free advances, citing the decision in M/s. S.A. Builders Vs. CIT. Issue 3: The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest deduction based on the failure to establish the business purpose of the advances made to the holding Company, despite the existence of a Joint Development Agreement. The Court found no commercial expediency in the transaction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Issue 4: The inconsistency in decision-making regarding the deduction of interest payment under Section 36(1)(iii) for different assessment years was highlighted by the appellant. However, the Court found no legal grounds to challenge the factual findings of the Tribunal and upheld the dismissal of the Tax Case Appeal. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of establishing commercial expediency and business purpose for claiming deductions under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment highlighted the need for factual substantiation and consistency in interpreting tax provisions for interest payments on borrowed funds used for business activities.
|
