9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1153 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 43B on interest expenditure - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the CIT(A) herein has granted part relief to the assessee qua interest payments made to APRDC and APCSC only that they fall in the exemption mechanism in Section43B(d) of the Act. Since the payees are already covered by his order in said preceding assessment year and also they fall in the exempt category of recipients only. We make it clear that the Revenue is fair enough in its grounds in not disputing the status of the twin recipients hereinabove. We thus quote the hon'ble apex court s larger bench s decision in CIT Vs. K.Y.Pilliah 1966 (10) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT that the tribunal need not record independent findings on its own if it expresses its complete agreement with the first appellate authority s conclusion(s) under challenge. We hold in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned 43B disallowance pertaining to these twin payees/corporations. The Revenue s sole substantive grievance fails accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. 2. Disallowance of rates and taxes. 3. Disallowance of leave encashment. 4. Non-set off of brought forward losses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure under Section 43B: The Revenue's primary contention was that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the Assessing Officer's (AO) disallowance of ?6,83,24,520/- as interest expenditure under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The AO argued that the interest expenditure was a mere provision and contingent in nature, not realized during the year, and therefore not allowable as business expenditure. The AO disallowed the interest, stating it was not paid during the year, and cited Section 43B, which mandates that interest on loans from public financial institutions, state financial corporations, or state industrial investment corporations is deductible only on actual payment. The appellant contended that the interest was not contingent but an ascertained liability, payable at the contracted rate on borrowed amounts, and since it followed the mercantile system of accounting, it had to account for interest attributable to the year, regardless of actual payment. The appellant further argued that Section 43B applies only to loans from banks and financial institutions, not from the Government of Andhra Pradesh or its corporations, and therefore, the disallowance was erroneous. The CIT(A) agreed with the appellant, noting that similar issues in previous years were adjudicated in favor of the appellant. It was concluded that Section 43B does not apply to interest payments to the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its corporations (APRDC and APCSC). The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the loans from the state government and delete the disallowance accordingly. The tribunal upheld this view, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. K.Y.Pilliah, affirming that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance for these entities. 2. Disallowance of Rates and Taxes: The AO disallowed ?4,87,590/- incurred towards taxes, duties, and cess, and ?5,676/- for leave encashment, as these were not paid before filing the return under Section 139(1). The appellant argued that proof of payment for the taxes was filed, and the leave encashment was already disallowed in the return, making the AO's disallowance a double disallowance. The CIT(A) did not find merit in the AO's disallowance of rates and taxes, given the evidence of payment provided by the appellant. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the disallowance lacked merit as the payments were substantiated. 3. Disallowance of Leave Encashment: The AO disallowed ?5,676/- for leave encashment, which the appellant had already disallowed in its return. The appellant argued that this resulted in a double disallowance. The CIT(A) recognized this error and directed the AO to correct the double disallowance. The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), emphasizing the need to avoid double disallowance. 4. Non-set off of Brought Forward Losses: The appellant contended that the AO failed to set off brought forward losses against the income determined. This issue was not elaborated upon in the tribunal's judgment, suggesting it was either resolved or not contested further. Conclusion: The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 43B for loans from the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its corporations. The tribunal also supported the CIT(A)'s findings on the disallowance of rates, taxes, and leave encashment, ensuring no double disallowance. The Revenue's sole substantive grievance was found to lack merit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
