2014 (5) TMI 1129 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction u/s 24(b) - deduction for interest paid - Held that - The meaning given at Sl No. 2 for renewal would definitely take in its stride the conversion charges also because the dictionary clearly states that recreation of legal relationship or replacement of old contract with a new contract is covered by the definition of renewal. This means in the case of the assessee when the original contract for the property was for industrial shed and after charging the conversion charges the contract would be for commercial property. In our opinion this would be definitely covered by the expression renewal . In practical terms the assessee could not have used the property except for running the industry in electrical items but now the assessee has been allowed to use the same in commercial terms and i.e. why the assessee has been able to exploit the same by giving commercial site on rent for the purpose of running a hotel. This is because of the renewal made by the Chandigarh Administration by changing the usage of the property. Thus the assessee is definitely entitled to claim the deduction for interest paid to Chandigarh Administration and accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to allow deduction of this interest. As far addition on account of interest paid to other parties No doubt the assessee has raised further funds therefore Sarovar Hotel Pvt. Ltd by way of interest bearing securities but the same has not been shown to be paid for payment of conversion charges. In fact we had asked the Ld. Counsel to file the copies of partner s capital account because the Assessing officer has given a finding that there was a negative balance in the partner s capital account. These were filed and perusal of the same clearly show that there is negative balance in the partner s capital account. Even the balance sheet clearly show that partner s capital account had a negative balance. Therefore clearly the further borrowing have gone towards the payment to the partners and same are not related to the conversion charges. To this extent the Assessing officer is right that the disallowance has to be maintained. We may clarify that this contention is quite right because in the computation the assessee has claimed interest of only Rs. 60, 18, 199 and the income has been computed by the Assessing officer on the basis of computation filed by the assessee. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest payment of Rs. 50,10,055 claimed under Section 24(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Disallowance of interest payment of Rs. 15,84,706 to Sarovar Hotel under Section 24(b).
3. Excessiveness of the sustained disallowances.
4. Charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Interest Payment of Rs. 50,10,055:
The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 24(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 50,10,055, which was paid as interest on conversion charges to the Estate Office, Chandigarh Administration. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, stating that the interest paid was for conversion charges and not for acquisition, construction, repair, renewal, or reconstruction of the property. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, reasoning that the interest paid for conversion charges was not covered under Section 24(b). However, the Tribunal found that the conversion of industrial property into commercial property falls under the term "renewal" as per the Black's Law Dictionary and Law Lexicon definitions. The Tribunal concluded that the interest paid for conversion charges is an allowable deduction under Section 24(b), referencing the decision in CIT Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma, where interest on unpaid purchase price was considered deductible.

2. Disallowance of Interest Payment of Rs. 15,84,706 to Sarovar Hotel:
The assessee also claimed a deduction for interest paid to Sarovar Hotel, amounting to Rs. 15,84,706. The Assessing Officer disallowed this, arguing that the payment had no nexus with the interest payment for the property and that the assessee had raised unsecured loans which were advanced to the partners, who had negative balances in their accounts. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. Upon review, the Tribunal found that part of the interest was a discount on advance rent paid by Sarovar Hotel for the purpose of conversion charges, which should be allowed as a deduction. However, the further borrowing from Sarovar Hotel, which was used to pay the partners and not for conversion charges, was rightly disallowed. The Tribunal directed that only Rs. 10,08,144 of the interest should be disallowed, as this amount had no nexus with the conversion charges.

3. Excessiveness of the Sustained Disallowances:
The Tribunal addressed the excessiveness of the disallowances by recalculating the allowable and disallowable interest amounts. It concluded that the disallowance should be restricted to Rs. 10,08,144, instead of the full Rs. 15,84,706 claimed by the Assessing Officer.

4. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C:
The assessee contended that the interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C was excessive. However, since the primary issues regarding the disallowance of interest payments were resolved, the Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis on this issue, implying that the decision on charging interest would follow the revised disallowances.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of Rs. 50,10,055 paid to Chandigarh Administration and to disallow Rs. 10,08,000 of the interest paid to others, while the remaining interest disallowance was upheld. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside accordingly.