9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of life membership fees as business expenditure. 2. Addition of borewell installation costs as capital expenditure. 3. Disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds due to interest-free loans to sister concerns. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Ground No. 1: Disallowance of Life Membership Fees The assessee firm contested the addition of Rs. 2,00,000 as disallowance for life membership fees paid to Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., which was deemed personal and alternatively treated as capital expenditure by the CIT(A). The membership was taken in the name of two partners. The assessee's representative argued that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by a precedent set in the case of Chindhy's Interiors, where the Tribunal held that club membership fees for executives and directors constitute admissible expenditure as it facilitates interaction with customers. The Tribunal found the facts of the present case identical to the precedent and allowed the ground, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. Ground No. 2: Addition of Borewell Installation Costs The assessee did not press this ground, which involved the addition of Rs. 16,800 on the ground that digging and installation of a borewell is capital expenditure. Consequently, this ground was rejected. Ground No. 3: Disallowance of Interest Paid on Borrowed Funds The AO noticed that the assessee had given interest-free loans/advances to three parties not connected with its business, totaling Rs. 11,17,058, while also debiting Rs. 20,65,149 as interest in the P&L account. The AO disallowed interest calculated at 18% and added Rs. 2,01,070. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, and the assessee appealed. The assessee's representative argued there was no direct nexus between interest-bearing funds and interest-free loans, asserting these loans were given from profits and substantial bank balance, among other sources. The representative cited several cases, including CIT vs. Bombay Samachar Ltd., to support the claim. The Tribunal analyzed the conditions under s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act, which allows deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed for business purposes. It found the impugned loans were not for business purposes, and the funds available were interest-bearing. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that interest pertaining to non-business loans/advances must be disallowed proportionately. The Tribunal referenced several cases to support its view, including: - Madhav Prasad Jatia vs. CIT, where the Supreme Court held that interest on borrowed funds used for personal obligations is not deductible. - CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd., where the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the onus is on the assessee to prove that borrowed funds were used for business purposes. - K. Somasundaram & Bros. vs. CIT, where the Madras High Court held that diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes disqualifies the interest as a deductible business expenditure. Based on these precedents, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest and rejected Ground No. 3. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with Ground No. 1 being accepted, Ground No. 2 rejected as not pressed, and Ground No. 3 rejected based on the analysis and precedents.
|
