2017 (12) TMI 861 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance on interest payment - addition u/s.40A(2)(a) - related parties - investment in the joint venture, under J.V Agreement - Held that - The expression commercial expediency is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. We note that loans and advances were given by the assessee to its joint venture on the grounds of commercial expediency therefore the assessee s issue under consideration is not covered by the provisions of section 40A (2) (a) of the Act. Therefore, based on the above discussions, we are of the view that assessee has a interest in its joint venture, and hence if the assessee advances money to a joint venture and the same is used by the joint venture for some business purposes, the assessee would, in our opinion, ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its loans and advances under section 37 (1)/36(1) (iii). -Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Disallowance of interest payment under section 40A(2)(a) - Commercial expediency of loans and advances to joint venture - Interpretation of provisions under section 36(1)(iii) and section 37 - Applicability of case law - Appeal against order passed by Assessing Officer and CIT(A).

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2010-11 and challenges the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata, arising from the Assessing Officer's decision under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee primarily contest the disallowance of interest payment of ?22,80,000 under section 40A(2)(a) by the Assessing Officer. The assessing officer noted that the loans and advances provided by the assessee to a joint venture lacked commercial expediency, leading to the disallowance of interest. The ld. CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, emphasizing the absence of justification for the business purpose of the funds provided. The CIT(A) observed that the interest-free advance to the joint venture was not appropriately categorized as capital contribution, thereby justifying the disallowance under section 40A(2)(a).

During the appellate proceedings, the assessee argued that the interest-free advance to the joint venture was indeed a capital contribution, funded from internal resources, and not borrowed funds. The assessee contended that the loans and advances were made for commercial expediency, entitling them to deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal considered the case law precedent, including the decision of the Hon`ble Supreme Court Of India in S.A. BUILDERS LTD. 288 ITR 01, emphasizing the principle of commercial expediency in determining the allowability of interest on borrowed funds. The Tribunal noted that the loans and advances to the joint venture were made out of the assessee's own funds, establishing a link between the funds utilized and the business purpose served.

The Tribunal opined that the loans and advances to the joint venture were driven by commercial expediency, not falling within the purview of section 40A(2)(a). Citing the provisions of section 37(1)/36(1)(iii) of the Act, the Tribunal held that the assessee's interest in the joint venture warranted deduction of interest on loans and advances. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of interest was unwarranted, as the transactions were conducted for business purposes and commercial expediency. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, overturning the decisions of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A).

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment revolved around the critical assessment of the commercial expediency of loans and advances to a joint venture, the interpretation of relevant provisions under the Income Tax Act, and the application of established case law principles. The Tribunal's decision underscored the importance of business purpose and commercial expediency in determining the allowability of interest payments, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee based on the evidence presented and the legal framework governing such transactions.