9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loan received from M/s. Pandit Kanahya Lal Punj by the assessee-company is in the nature of a deposit within the meaning of section 40A(8). 2. Whether the interest at 15 per cent needs to be disallowed or not. Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of Loan as Deposit under Section 40A(8): The primary issue is whether the loan received from M/s. Pandit Kanahya Lal Punj by the assessee-company qualifies as a deposit under section 40A(8). The assessee argued that the loan was a trading loan taken from a financial firm since 1957 and secured by the personal guarantee of the Directors and later by the hypothecation of stocks. The Board's resolution dated November 7, 1980, and a no-objection certificate from Hongkong and Shanghai Bank supported this claim. However, the claim was rejected because the said concern was not a company and the loan was shown as unsecured in the balance-sheet. Upon appeal, the CIT (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, concluding that no formal charge was created as required by law. The assessee argued that the charge was effective from the date of the Board's resolution and its filing with the Registrar of Companies, referencing the Punjab & Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court judgments to support that an oral agreement or failure of the Registrar to register the charge does not affect its validity. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 40A(8), which disallows interest on deposits but excludes loans secured by a mortgage, charge, or pledge of company assets, provided the loan amount does not exceed 75% of the market value of the charged assets. 2. Disallowance of Interest: The Tribunal analyzed whether the loan was secured by a charge on the company's assets. The relevant sections of the Companies Act (125, 132, and 134) were examined to determine the requirements for creating and registering a charge. The Tribunal noted that the company had filed the necessary particulars of the charge within the prescribed time, thus complying with the Companies Act. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's objection based on the auditor's note that the loan was unsecured, as the Act does not require additional documentation beyond filing Form No. 8 with the Registrar. The Tribunal concluded that the company was bound by its resolution creating the charge, making the loan secured. Therefore, the loan would not be considered a deposit under section 40A(8), and the disallowance of interest would not apply if the loan amount did not exceed 75% of the market value of the charged assets. Conclusion: The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the ITO to determine whether the loan, together with other loans, exceeded 75% of the market value of the charged assets as of November 7, 1981. If it did not exceed 75%, the disallowance under section 40A(8) would not apply; otherwise, it would. Result: The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, pending further examination by the ITO.
|
