9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 218 - AT - Income TaxInterest u/s 36(1)(iii) disallowed Held that - CIT(A) found that the assessee has borrowed funds amounting to ₹ 2.09 crores only during the year - no fresh deposits in FDRs were made by the assessee during the year - in the absence of any defect pointed out by the Revenue in the order of the CIT(A) and keeping in view the fact that no fresh investment in FDR was made during the year and keeping in view the fact that no disallowance of interest on borrowed capital was sustained in the case of the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year on account of its making investments in FDRs, there was no merit in the appeal. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance on his findings that borrowed funds were not required for immediate business needs - the need of business is to be judged from the point of view of businessmen - The assessee is having business turnover of over 211 Crores during the year under consideration - The amount which the assessee may need for his business may not be available always to the assessee - the assessee has to avail the loan amount when it is available by keeping in view the future needs which may arise in the course of business - merely as because the assessee had sufficient own funds on the date of the borrowings it cannot be concluded that borrowings were not for the purpose of business - the disallowance of interest of ₹ 10,71,797/- upheld by the CIT(A) is not sustainable Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A. 2. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A: Facts and Findings: - The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs. 1,20,952/- and computed a disallowance of Rs. 1,73,586/- under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) and Rule 8D(2)(iii). - The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the disallowance, referencing the assessee's previous assessment year (AY 2007-08) where a similar disallowance was upheld. - The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) submitted the Tribunal's order for AY 2007-08, which confirmed the disallowance. - Based on the AR's submission, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on this ground. Conclusion: - The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under Section 14A, confirming the AO and CIT(A)'s orders. 2. Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii): Facts and Findings: - The AO noted that the assessee paid substantial interest on borrowed funds from relatives at a higher rate (14%) while earning a lower interest rate (7-7.5%) on fixed deposits (FDRs). The AO disallowed Rs. 1,40,01,748/- as excess interest paid. - On appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 10,71,797/- after analyzing the availability and utilization of funds, finding that the borrowings were not required for business purposes. - The CIT(A) provided detailed calculations and reasoning for each transaction, concluding that the disallowance of Rs. 10,71,797/- was justified, but the remaining disallowance was excessive and thus deleted. - The AR argued that the Tribunal in AY 2007-08 had reversed a similar disallowance by the CIT(A), asserting that the interest paid was reasonable. - The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts, noted that the AO did not point out any error in the CIT(A)'s findings and that no fresh FDRs were made during the year. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. - Regarding the retained disallowance of Rs. 10,71,797/-, the Tribunal opined that business needs should be judged from the businessman's perspective. It noted that the Revenue did not prove that borrowed funds were used for non-business purposes and found the disallowance unsustainable. Conclusion: - The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 10,71,797/-, concluding that the interest expenses were justified and necessary for business purposes. Final Judgment: - The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. - The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. - The disallowance under Section 14A was upheld. - The disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted. Order Pronouncement: - The order was pronounced in the Court on Friday, the 31st of October, 2014, at Ahmedabad.
|
