9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 1.32 crores claimed as deduction on account of project expenses. 2. Disallowance of Rs. 35,99,656 by the AO and upholding of such disallowance in the sum of Rs. 22,66,010 by the CIT(A) due to the lack of nexus between interest-free advances and interest-bearing loans. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 1.32 crores claimed as deduction on account of project expenses Facts and Arguments: The assessee undertook a project study for Visa Petrochemicals but later sold the project report to Welspun (India) Ltd./Stahl Rohen Ltd. for Rs. 2 crores. The assessee claimed project expenses payable to Mega Safe Deposit (Rs. 17 lakhs), Sidharth Traders (Rs. 64 lakhs), and Sumo Traders (Rs. 68 lakhs). The AO disallowed expenses for Sidharth Traders and Sumo Traders due to lack of confirmation despite several opportunities. The CIT(A) remanded the case, and the AO's remand report concluded that the project expenses were not genuine based on the lack of experience of the parties involved and the non-payment of the claimed amounts for over seven years. CIT(A) Observations: - Lack of interaction between the appellant and the assignees during the project. - The appellant company based in Mumbai approached concerns in Ahmedabad despite the availability of consultancy firms in Mumbai. - The assignees were inexperienced and lacked the resources to carry out the assignment. - No evidence was provided for the work done by the assignees. - No payments were made for the claimed amounts, and the reasons for non-payment were unconvincing. - The affidavits and confirmation letters were self-serving and lacked evidentiary value. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal found that: - The assessee provided confirmations and produced the concerned parties during remand proceedings. - The parties confirmed rendering services and the amounts were shown in their income. - The non-payment was due to additional assignments not honored by the assignees. - The assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, and the expenses were incurred in the previous year. The Tribunal concluded that the expenses were genuine and for business purposes, allowing the deduction of Rs. 1.32 crores. Issue 2: Disallowance of Rs. 35,99,656 by the AO and upholding of such disallowance in the sum of Rs. 22,66,010 by the CIT(A) Facts and Arguments: The AO observed discrepancies in the interest payments and receipts, leading to the disallowance of Rs. 35,99,656. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 22,66,010, noting that the assessee had a nominal share capital and no reserves, indicating that interest-bearing loans were not fully utilized for business purposes. CIT(A) Observations: - The assessee's claim that interest-free advances were made from interest-free borrowings was not accepted. - The assessee's financial structure indicated that interest-bearing loans were used for various purposes, including investments and advancing loans. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's case was similar to the Kerala High Court judgment in the case of V.I. Baby & Co., where similar disallowance was upheld. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground, retaining the disallowance of Rs. 22,66,010 under Section 36(1)(iii). Conclusion: The assessee's appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 1.32 crores claimed as project expenses but upheld the disallowance of Rs. 22,66,010 related to interest payments.
|
