2018 (8) TMI 1255 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - assessee has given interest free advances to its subsidiary company - related party covered under s.40A(2)(b) - Held that - The assessee has own funds (interest free) which is nearly six times of the corresponding interest free advances. Thus, on facts presumption required to be drawn in favour of the assessee that interest free investment in sister concern is utilized out of own funds. - CIT(A) has corrected deleted the additions - Decided against the revenue. Allowability of set off of MAT credit - Held that - The co-ordinate bench thus took a view that for the purposes of tax credit under s.115JAA of the Act, tax would include surcharge and education cess. In parity, we hold identically. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
3. Allowability of MAT credit under section 115JAA.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance of ?46,85,028 under section 36(1)(iii). The Revenue contended that the assessee gave interest-free advances to a related party covered under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) relied on various court decisions and concluded that the interest-free investments were made out of the assessee's own interest-free funds, which were substantially higher than the advances. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that no interference was necessary as the presumption favored the assessee.

Issue 2: Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act:
The second ground concerned a disallowance of ?8,801 under section 14A. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance from ?23,148 based on the interest income set off against the interest expenditure, following a Gujarat High Court decision. The ITAT found no fault with the CIT(A)'s decision, as it was in line with the relevant court ruling, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

Issue 3: Allowability of MAT credit under section 115JAA:
The final issue revolved around the allowability of MAT credit of ?1,69,59,061, which was reduced to ?35,59,296 by the AO. The CIT(A) reversed the withdrawal of credit on account of education cess and surcharge. The ITAT agreed with the assessee's claim for including surcharge and cess for MAT credit based on a Kolkata Tribunal decision and a recent Delhi Tribunal case. The ITAT held that tax credit under section 115JAA should include surcharge and education cess, thus dismissing the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions in favor of the assessee. The judgment provided detailed reasoning based on legal interpretations and precedents to support the conclusions reached on each issue.