9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT erred in upholding the order of Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] and deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure, amounting to Rs.2,79,11,315/- made by the Assessing Officer ('AO'), without considering the correct factual position that the borrowed funds advanced by the Assessee to the Contract Bottling Units ('CBUs') were not used by the Assessee for the purposes of business since no revenue was disclosed from such activities. He further states that the ITAT failed to consider that the CBUs are separate and distinct entities and therefore, the Assessee had failed to prove a direct nexus of the said interest expenses for its business purposes as stipulated under Sections 36 and 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the relevant material available on record. As regards to Ground No. 1, from the perusal of the records it can be seen that the loan procured was utilized by the assessee wholly and exclusively for its business as per clause 14 of the arrangement between third party contract bottling units (CBUs). The working capital is advanced to these CBUs so as to enable them to procure material, undertake manufacturing and maintain stocks and debtors for the assessee. The assessee's profit earning source is the arrangement with the CBUs wherein the assessee provides working capital to these CBUs to enable them to procure materials and carry out large scale manufacturing of alcoholic beverages and deliver the same to the assessee's customers o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot automatically prove that they have not been incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are dismissed." 7. The ITAT and CIT(A), both fact finding authorities have concurrently held that the expenses claimed by the assessee were duly incurred in the course of business. In the present appeal, the appellant has not placed any material on record to contradict the aforesaid concurrent finding of facts returned by the ITAT and CIT(A), while reversing the disallowances made by the AO. The appellant has failed to point out any error of law in the findings of the ITAT. In this view of the matter, no substantial questions of law arise for considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
