2018 (5) TMI 754 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of interest free advances to group companies - advanced free of interest /investments made by the assessee in its subsidiary companies - interest bearing funds have been used for making interest free advances / investments with group companies - Held that - The advances/investments in subsidiary companies to the tune of ₹ 7.29 crores is a minor investment (less than 10%) vis-a-vis owned funds to the tune of ₹ 126.86 crores. Under these circumstances and factual matrix of the case as is detailed in extenso above, presumption shall apply that the assessee has invested its own interest free funds towards advancing money to its subsidiary company to the tune of ₹ 79 lacs as well for making investments in subsidiary companies to the tune of ₹ 6.50 crores and no disallowance of interest expenses are warranted. Revenue is not able to rebut the said presumption as no incriminating material is brought on record to evidence that interest bearing funds are used for making such advances/investments in subsidiary companies. There shall be presumption that the assessee invested its own funds for making interest free advances to the tune of ₹ 79 lacs in its subsidiary company and for making investments to the tune of ₹ 6.50 crores in its subsidiary companies to acquire controlling interest. See CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and HDFC Bank 2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of interest-free advances to group companies.
2. Addition on account of interest expenditure on investments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition on account of interest-free advances to group companies – ?2,38,580/-

The assessee contested the disallowance of ?2,38,580/- incurred on interest on borrowed funds, which were allegedly used for interest-free advances to group companies. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the assessee failed to provide new evidence to substantiate that the advances were given out of interest-free funds or to prove commercial expediency. The CIT(A) dismissed the ground by following the decision in the assessee's own case from earlier years.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had advanced ?79 lakh to its subsidiary, M/s Ion Exchange Enviro Farms Ltd, as an interest-free advance in earlier years, with no movement of funds during the year under consideration. The assessee claimed that the advance was due to commercial expediency. The tribunal observed that the assessee’s own capital, inclusive of share capital and reserves, was significantly higher than the interest-free advances. The tribunal relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Limited and HDFC Bank Limited v. DCIT, which establish a presumption that the assessee used its own funds for such advances when owned funds are substantial.

2. Addition on account of interest expenditure on investments – ?19,63,590/-

The assessee also contested the disallowance of ?19,63,590/- incurred on interest expenditure on investments. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the assessee’s letters were not submitted before her and that it was unclear whether the arguments were presented before the AO. The CIT(A) followed the order passed by her predecessor in the earlier year.

The tribunal observed that the assessee made investments of ?6,50,19,545/- in various subsidiary companies to acquire controlling interest, invoking commercial expediency. The tribunal noted that the assessee’s own capital was significantly higher than the investments made. The tribunal found no specific finding by the authorities below that interest-bearing funds were specifically raised and utilized for these investments. The tribunal concluded that the presumption applies that the assessee invested its own funds in these investments, and no disallowance of interest is warranted, relying on the decisions in Reliance Utilities and Power Limited and HDFC Bank Limited.

Conclusion:

The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the disallowances of interest expenditure on the grounds that the assessee’s own substantial funds were presumed to be used for the interest-free advances and investments in subsidiary companies. The tribunal’s decision was based on the principles established in relevant case laws and the factual matrix of the case.