Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 981 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance invoking the provisions of section 14A - HELD THAT - The issue involved is covered in favour of the assessee as the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Reference in this regard may be decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT New Delhi 2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT Treatment of waiver of the amount of principal loan for working capital - HELD THAT - If the working capital loan is used to finance working capital requirements the bank finance used results in debit to the trading and profit loss account for the concerned trading/working goods and services. In that case waiver of bank loan will not result in capital gain rather the provision of section 41(1) will be applicable. In this view of the matter in our considered opinion it is imperative that there is a finding as to what purposes the working capital loan has been utilised. In this regard learned Counsel of the assessee has submitted that part of the working capital loan has been utilized for acquisition of capital goods. We find that in this regard there is no clear cut finding by the assessing officer. In the case of Kapurchand Shrimal 1968 (8) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT has expounded that it is the duty of the appellate authority to correct the error in the orders of the authorities below and remit the matter for reconsideration with or without direction unless prohibited by law. In the present case accordingly we remit the issue to the file of assessing officer. The assessing officer is directed to give a finding on the utilisation of the working capital loan which has been waived by the bank and thereafter decide as per law. Accordingly the issue is remitted to the file of Assessing Officer with the above direction.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A as per Rule 8D. 2. Treatment of waiver of principal loan by financial institutions as income. 3. Deletion of addition as bogus purchase. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 14A as per Rule 8D: The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision for not computing the disallowance under Section 14A as per Rule 8D, despite the assessee's computation being incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee as no exempt income was earned. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT, New Delhi, which supports the assessee's position. 2. Treatment of Waiver of Principal Loan by Financial Institutions as Income:The revenue contended that the waiver of principal loans by financial institutions should be treated as income, citing the High Court decision in Solid Containers Ltd vs DCIT. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, referencing past orders and decisions like Cipla Investments Ltd and Iskraemeco Regent Ltd, which considered such waivers as capital receipts, not income. The Tribunal examined various case laws, including the Supreme Court's decision in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, which distinguished between trading liabilities and other liabilities, emphasizing that Section 41(1) applies to trading liabilities. The Tribunal noted that the waiver of working capital loans, used for daily operations, should be examined to determine if they were used for capital assets or operational needs. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer to ascertain the loan's utilization and decide accordingly, following the precedent set in Wasan Exports (P) Ltd. 3. Deletion of Addition as Bogus Purchase:For the assessment year 2011-12, the revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ?3,46,273 as bogus purchase, based on an affidavit from the director of M/s MaaChamunda Sales Pvt. Ltd. confirming no actual purchase/sales. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis for this issue in the judgment text provided. Conclusion:The Tribunal consolidated the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, addressing common issues. The disallowance under Section 14A was resolved in favor of the assessee due to the absence of exempt income. The treatment of loan waivers was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination of the loan's utilization. The issue of bogus purchases for 2011-12 was acknowledged but not elaborated upon in the provided text. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for further examination by the Assessing Officer.
|