2016 (12) TMI 1079 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made u/s 40A(2) - assessee had purchases of goods from its holding company in excess of the fair market value - Held that - The onus is on the ld AO to bring the fair market value of the goods purchased by bringing in comparable cases ; onus is on the ld AO to bring on record that the payment for purchases has resulted in some benefit derived by the other person to whom the payment has been made. Only in such cases, he could disallow to the extent that such payment is found to be excessive or unreasonable in his opinion. In the instant case, the ld AO had not brought any comparable cases on record to disprove the purchases made from holding company by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance made u/s 40A(2) towards salary and professional fees paid to Chandana Poddar - Held that - The business acumen is developed by a person not by educational qualification but by his / her sheer native intelligence and presence of mind which does not come from education alone. We also find that the assessee had made total payments only to the extent of ₹ 12 lakhs to Mrs Chandana Poddar as against ₹ 13 lakhs disallowed by the revenue, which was not rectified even when specifically brought to their notice. We find that in the instant case, the assessee had duly provided the complete details of nature of services rendered by Mrs Chandana Poddar. If the revenue had got any apprehension regarding the same, nothing prevented them from questioning her by recording a statement by resorting to process of issuing summons procedure contemplated u/s 131 of the Act. In the absence of bringing any other evidence to the contrary, no disallowance could be made in the facts and circumstances of the case. AO had merely disallowed the entire expenditure as not meant for the purpose of business. If that be so, he ought not to have invoked the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. We also find that the ld AO had without prejudice had also tried to disallow the said expenditure u/s. 37 of the act as not meant for the purpose of business. We find that this action of the ld AO is purely without any basis and is merely based on surmise and conjecture. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds on a proportionate basis - Held that - The revenue did not adduce any evidence to show that the borrowed capital was utilized by the assessee for non-business purposes. We find that the test of commercial expediency is proved in the instant case beyond doubt and hence the interest paid on borrowed capital is to be allowed. We hold that the interest paid on borrowed funds in the sum of ₹ 5,34,24,658/- would be squarely allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:

1. Addition under Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act for purchases from a holding company.
2. Disallowance under Section 40A(2) for salary and professional fees paid to a relative of the director.
3. Disallowance of interest paid on borrowed funds under Section 36(1)(iii).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition under Section 40A(2) for Purchases from Holding Company:

The primary issue was whether the addition of ?5,49,386/- under Section 40A(2) for purchases made from the holding company was justified. The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to prove that the payments exceeded the fair market value. The AO had not provided any comparable cases to substantiate the claim that the purchase price was unreasonable. The tribunal found that the AO did not bring any evidence to show that the payments were excessive or unreasonable. The tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs Udhoji Shrikrishnadas and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Denso Haryana Pvt Ltd, which supported the assessee's case. Consequently, the tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance of ?5,49,386/-.

2. Disallowance under Section 40A(2) for Salary and Professional Fees:

The next issue was the disallowance of ?13,00,000/- paid to Mrs. Chandana Poddar, relative of the director, as salary and professional fees. The AO disallowed the amount on the grounds that the assessee failed to substantiate the reasonableness of the payments with cogent evidence like educational qualifications or details of services rendered. The tribunal noted that the assessee provided detailed descriptions of the services rendered by Mrs. Poddar, which were not disputed by the revenue. The tribunal emphasized that business acumen is not solely determined by educational qualifications but also by experience and native intelligence. The tribunal found that the AO had not brought any comparable cases to prove that the payments were excessive. The tribunal also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs Nagesh Cine Enterprises and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Abbas Wazir (P) Ltd vs CIT, which supported the assessee's case. The tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance of ?13,00,000/-.

3. Disallowance of Interest Paid on Borrowed Funds:

The final issue was the disallowance of ?5,34,24,658/- as interest paid on borrowed funds. The AO disallowed the interest on the grounds that the borrowed funds were not utilized for the assessee's business. The assessee argued that the borrowed funds were advanced to its subsidiary, M/s Confident Solar Pvt Ltd, for strategic business purposes, including acquiring a controlling interest in Viom Networks Ltd. The tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd vs CIT, which held that the test of commercial expediency is crucial in such cases. The tribunal found that the investment made by the subsidiary in Viom Networks Ltd was for business purposes and constituted a business activity. The tribunal also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT vs RPG Transmissions Ltd and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria, which supported the assessee's case. The tribunal concluded that the interest paid on borrowed funds was allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) and directed the AO to delete the disallowance of ?5,34,24,658/-.

Conclusion:

The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the disallowances made under Sections 40A(2) and 36(1)(iii). The tribunal emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with comparable cases and the relevance of commercial expediency in business transactions. The judgments relied upon by the assessee were found to be directly applicable, leading to the favorable outcome.

← Previous Next →