2005 (4) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest - held that where the amount of any interest-free loan is sufficiently covered by the non-interest-bearing funds available with the assessee, the question of disallowance of interest on borrowed funds does not arise. It is also not the case of the Revenue that any amount borrowed from the bank on which the liability for payment of interest-free advance was there with the respondent-assessee, had not utilized for the purposes of business. - Tribunal was justified in confirming the deletion of Rs. 1,81,000 being disallowance of interest

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 1,81,000 made by the Assessing Officer from interest paid on overdraft facilities to sister concern.

Analysis:
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the question of law regarding the deletion of Rs. 1,81,000 disallowance of interest for the assessment year 1984-85. The respondent-assessee, a company, had advanced funds to its sister concern and the Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of interest paid on overdraft facilities. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that interest-free advances were covered by the company's own funds and reserves. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the appellant's interest-free advances were adequately covered by its share capital, reserves, and interest-free advances from customers. The Tribunal cited relevant case laws to support its decision, highlighting that disallowance of interest was not justified when funds were utilized for business purposes.

The Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal was unsuccessful. The respondent-assessee clarified that it had sufficient non-interest-bearing funds, including share capital and reserves, to cover the interest-free advances made to the sister concern. The court noted that the interest-free advances were fully covered by the company's non-interest-bearing funds, amounting to approximately Rs. 1,60,00,000. Citing a relevant case law, the court emphasized that if the amount of interest-free loan is adequately covered by non-interest-bearing funds, disallowance of interest on borrowed funds is unwarranted. The court concluded in favor of the assessee, stating that the interest-free advances were justified and there was no indication that borrowed funds were misused.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, ruling that the interest-free advances to the sister concern were adequately covered by the company's non-interest-bearing funds. The court emphasized that when funds are utilized for business purposes and interest-free advances are supported by non-interest-bearing funds, disallowance of interest on borrowed funds is not justified. The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases where interest-free advances are made using non-interest-bearing funds, ensuring fair treatment in tax assessments.