Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1624 - AT - Income TaxReference to dispute resolution panel u/s 144C - time limit for passing the order u/s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 143(3) - time limit mandated as per section 153(6) - HELD THAT:- The time limit prescribed in section 144C(13) refers to the time limit upon receipt of the directions of the DRP within which the A.O. has to pass the order. Thus as per section 144C(13), when such an assessment is done upon the receipt of direction from the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, the time limit of one month is mandatory. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not upon the receipt of the directions issued by the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, but upon the receipt of an order by the Hon’ble High Court, wherein the direction of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel has been modified. Hence, the Assessing Officer has to pass the order under direction of ld. Dispute Resolution Panel upon which the Hon’ble High Court has passed as order. Hence, this is clearly a case wherein the provisions of section 153(6) come into play. As already found hereinabove, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is well within the time limit mandated as per section 153(6) of the Act. Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. Disallowances of interest expenditure u/s. 36(1)(1) - HELD THAT:- Interest mentioned in item number (i) and (ii) loan given to employees and margin deposits are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the tribunal in assessee's own case mentioned above. DR did not dispute this proposition. Accordingly, we hold that respectfully following the precedent in assessee's own case, these interest incomes mentioned in item number (i) and (ii) above should be treated as income from business. Interest on ICDs and interest on fixed deposits, assessee fairly conceded that these should be treated as income from other sources. Accordingly, we uphold the order's of the authorities below, confirming the treatment of this interest income as income from other sources. Addition for the provision of income tax recoverable from Gujarat Electricity Board and Essar Steel Ltd while computing normal income under the Act as well as computing book profit u/s. 115 JB - HELD THAT:- The issue as regards the addition under the normal provisions of the Act is covered against the assessee by the tribunal's order in assessee's own case as mentioned in the chart above. Accordingly, under the normal provisions of the Act, we confirm the addition for the provisions made in this regard. Addition while computing the book profit u/s. 115 JB of the Act is concerned, the same is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case. Hence, we set aside the order of the authorities below on this issue and hold that no addition in this regard is sustainable while computing book profit u/s. 115 JB of the Act. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - disallowance on account of exempt income - HELD THAT:- Disallowance u/s. 14A is required when the assessee has not earned any exempt income. We may gainfully refer to the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of a Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2016 (10) TMI 1039 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] -Hence, respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the orders of the authority below and hold that since the assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance u/s. 14A is required. Disallowance of interest expenditure claimed - HELD THAT:- Section 36(1)(iii) provides for allowance of amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of the business or profession. Thus, for allowance of interest expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) firstly, the capital should be borrowed and secondly, it should be for the purpose of business or profession. As the facts of this case detailed herein above clearly indicate that at the time of the said borrowal of fund of Rs.50 crores, the assessee already had given an advance free of interest of Rs.60 crores to VPCL towards equity share capital. As a matter of fact, the assessee gave further advances towards equity and equity shares were allotted only on 29.09.2008 which is more than three months from the said date of borrowal. Hence, it is crystal clear that as on the date of borrowal and upto 3 months thereafter, no equity shares had been allotted and the lender company was indebted to assessee for a sum of Rs.60 crores. Hence, it is clearly evident that this is not a case of capital borrowed but the assessee’s own money given free of interest for advance for equity shares coming back as interest bearing inter corporate deposit. Hence, the assessee clearly fails the test of the amount having been borrowed, for allowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii). Whether the amount borrowed was used for business purposes? - AO has gone on to mention that the assessee has unnecessarily burdened the business by inter corporate deposit obtained from VPCL. We further note that before ld. Dispute Resolution Panel also the assessee has not produced necessary details or evidence showing that the borrowed funds have been utilized for the purpose of business. This aspect has been clearly mentioned in the direction of the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel wherein it has been categorically stated that the assessee had not shown any evidence in this regard. Before us also the assessee had not submitted any detail to counter this clear finding of the authorities below that there was absence of necessary evidence to show that the amount borrowed was used for the purpose of business. Assessee had submitted that the matter may be remitted to the Assessing Officer to enable the assessee to prove this aspect. In our considered opinion, at this stage, there is no cogency in this submission. The assessee has not produced any detail of the utilization of the said borrowed amount for business purpose, despite adverse comments by AO and DRP at any stage even upto the level of ITAT. Hence, there is no point of remitting the matter again. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the authorities below holding that the payment of interest claimed on account of ICD from VPCL is not allowable as per the provisions of section 36(1)(iii). Appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed.
|