9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1468 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of interest - advances granted for acquiring development rights in relation to land situated at Bhandup - interest charged @ 12% on the aggregate loan - as per AO since there is no business during the relevant previous year and the only receipt declared by the assessee is interest on debentures and assessee has advanced interest free loan to Ackruti City Ltd - HELD THAT - We are of the considered opinion that the disallowance of interest if any is to be restricted to the amount of advance actually given by the assessee and should not be in reference to the expenditure incurred for the registration and stamp duty charges for registration of development agreement. We further found that since the advance was granted on 31.12.2009 as per the development agreement therefore the period covered during the year under consideration is only w.e.f 31.12.09 i.e. for 3 months accordingly the AO is directed to compute the disallowance of interest only on the actual amount of advance and only for the period of three months w.e.f. 31.12.09 to 31.03.10. AO is directed accordingly.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. Capitalization of interest attributable to advances. 3. Compliance with principles of natural law of equity and justice. Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest The assessee, engaged in real estate development, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the disallowance of interest. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed interest charges on an advance made to a related company for acquiring development rights. The AO held that since the assessee had no business activity during the relevant year except for interest income on debentures, the interest-free advance was disallowed. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to a specific amount after considering submissions. The CIT(A) analyzed the source of funds for the advance, concluding that a portion was from share capital and the rest from unsecured loans. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance based on this analysis. Issue 2: Capitalization of Interest The CIT(A) considered whether the interest-free advance was made from share capital or unsecured loans. The CIT(A) analyzed the financial transactions, including investments in debentures, to determine the source of funds for the advance. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not have sufficient funds from share capital alone to cover the entire advance amount. Therefore, the interest-free advance was partly funded by unsecured loans and overdraft from the bank. The CIT(A) relied on legal precedents to support the decision to restrict the disallowance of interest to a specific amount based on the source of funds for the advance. Issue 3: Compliance with Principles of Equity and Justice The AO's disallowance of interest was challenged on the grounds of equity and justice. The assessee argued that the interest-free loan to the related company was made from its own funds, justifying the disallowance. The CIT(A) examined the financial structure of the assessee, highlighting the mix of share capital and loans used for investments and advances. The CIT(A) concluded that the interest disallowance was justified based on the source of funds for the advance. The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the disallowance of interest only on the actual amount of advance and for a specific period, considering the timing of the advance. In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO to calculate the disallowance of interest based on the actual amount of advance and the specific period covered. The judgment emphasized the importance of analyzing the source of funds for transactions to determine the tax treatment of interest expenses related to advances.
|
