2017 (1) TMI 630 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) - assessee has paid interest to specified persons at the rate of 18% on the loan received from them - AO has disallowed interest payment over and above 12% per annum - Held that - As decided in assessee s own case for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 to 2010-11 once there was categorical findings by the Tribunal that 18% per annum interest was reasonable and there was nothing contrary thereto such findings the CIT(A) ought to have followed the same. In view of the above discussion and bearing in mind entirety of the case we are of the considered view that the impugned disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) in respect of interest paid in excess to 12% per annum deserves to be deleted. We therefore direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Disallowance of interest payment over 12% per annum under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The assessee appealed against the order of the ld.CIT(A)- IV, Ahmedabad regarding the disallowance of ?4,88,725. The dispute arose from interest payments made to specified persons under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at 18% on a loan received from them, exceeding the 12% per annum limit set by the ld.AO.

2. The Tribunal reviewed the previous order dated 26.12.2016 for the Asstt.Year 2005-06 to 2010-11 in the assessee's case, where a similar disallowance was deleted. The Tribunal's discussion highlighted the business rationale behind the interest rate negotiation and the absence of tax avoidance motives. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer's disallowance lacked a legally sustainable basis.

3. The ld.CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim that 18% interest was reasonable, referencing contradictory decisions from various High Courts. However, the Co-ordinate Bench decision held that 18% interest was justifiable and not excessive under Section 40A(2)(b). The Tribunal emphasized that the rate for loans from banks cannot serve as a benchmark for loans from individuals, given the different nature of transactions.

4. Referring to a judgment by the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal highlighted that the interest was taxed at the same rate for recipients, making the disallowance under section 40A(2) unwarranted. The Tribunal criticized the superficial approach of the ld.CIT(A) in disregarding Co-ordinate Bench decisions and emphasized the principle of revenue neutrality to avoid double taxation.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal followed the Division Bench's order and allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance of ?4,88,725. The decision was based on the previous findings that 18% interest per annum was reasonable and legally justifiable, leading to the conclusion that the impugned disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) was unfounded.

6. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the disallowance of interest payment over 12% per annum was deleted, as per the Division Bench's order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Tribunal's decision-making process.