9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 131 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of excessive interest rate - Held that - The assessee had paid interest @ 10.5% on secured loans whereas paid ineterest 2 18% on loans from relatives - The assessee has not shown that there was payment of interest @ 18% to outside parties in the year under consideration or in any of the earlier or subsequent years - No other justification to show that payment of interest @ 18% rate is reasonable was given nor any compelling circumstances have been brought to our notice - Following assessee s own case for A.Y. 2006-07 - The CIT(A) took reason to allow deduction of interest @ 2 to 3% higher than the rate at which secured loans are available - It is considered reasonable to allow a deduction of interest @ 15% - The issue was restored for fresh adjudication.
Issues:
- Disallowance of interest payment under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act - Justification of interest payment at 18% to related parties - Burden of proof on the assessee to show reasonableness of interest payment - Comparison with rates of interest on secured loans - Consideration of judicial pronouncements in determining reasonableness of interest payment Analysis: 1. The appeal concerned the disallowance of interest payment under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, engaged in the manufacture of forging parts, had declared income and presented audited accounts. The AO noted an increase in unsecured loans and outflow of interest paid at 18%. The AO raised a query regarding the excessive interest payment to relatives of directors, considering bank loans available at lower rates. The assessee explained the lack of security for larger bank loans, but the AO found the explanation unsatisfactory. Consequently, a disallowance of 6% of interest was made, totaling Rs. 8,34,077. 2. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, citing judicial precedents emphasizing the need to scrutinize transactions with related parties. The CIT(A) referred to judgments by the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court to support the decision. The CIT(A) highlighted the importance of assessing the reasonableness of expenditures under Section 40A(2)(b) concerning fair market value and legitimate business needs. Additionally, a Kerala High Court judgment was considered in reaching the conclusion to dismiss the appeal. 3. In the appeal before the ITAT, the assessee's counsel relied on tribunal orders and a Third Member decision in a related case. The assessee argued that the burden to prove excessive interest payment was not met by the AO. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the interest payment to related parties was unreasonable and amounted to diversion of income. The ITAT observed that the burden initially on the AO was discharged, and the onus shifted to the assessee to justify the interest payment at 18%, which was not adequately done. 4. Considering the rates of interest on secured loans and absence of evidence supporting the reasonableness of the 18% interest payment, the ITAT found no justification for the higher rate. The ITAT referred to a Bombay High Court judgment to support its decision. While the assessee cited a favorable CIT(A) order in a subsequent year, the ITAT determined a reasonable deduction of interest at 15% and remitted the matter back to the AO for appropriate disallowance, thereby partly allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. 5. The ITAT's decision emphasized the importance of justifying interest payments to related parties under Section 40A(2)(b) and the burden of proof on the assessee to demonstrate reasonableness. The judgment considered various legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case to arrive at a reasonable deduction of interest, highlighting the need for thorough scrutiny of transactions with related parties to prevent income diversion. Conclusion: The ITAT partially allowed the appeal by the assessee, emphasizing the requirement for justifying interest payments to related parties and determining a reasonable deduction based on the specific facts and legal principles involved. The decision underscored the significance of assessing the reasonableness of expenditures under Section 40A(2)(b) to prevent improper income diversion and ensure compliance with tax regulations.
|
