9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 608 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - interest paid on borrowed funds - HELD THAT - As in the assessee s own cases in 2025 (4) TMI 643 - ITAT DELHI as held no disallowance of interest could be made where non-interest bearing funds were more than the investments made in tax free securities. Thus set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this score and delete the disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly this ground stands decided in favour of the assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee inadvertently made suo-moto disallowance - HELD THAT - This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of Tribunal in the assessee s own cases 2025 (4) TMI 643 - ITAT DELHI Relief sought by the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee inadvertently made suo-moto disallowance u/s 14A - We decline to accept the argument of the Ld. AR in this regard on the simple reasoning that the assessee made suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 4, 42, 817/- under section 14A of the Act in its Income Tax Return on the basis of judicial pronouncements at that point of time. The relief sought with respect to the disallowance of Rs. 4, 42, 817/- under section 14A of the Act would result the returned income into loss; i.e. the income below than the income disclosed in the Income Tax Return eligible to be carried forward. Hence appreciating the facts in entirety and considering submissions/contentions/arguments of both parties we are of the considered view that the claim of the assessee is not justified. Hence this ground stands decided against the assessee. Disallowance of maintenance expenses - CIT(A) Allowed part relief - HELD THAT - There is no infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) as none of these parties brought any material contradictory to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). We therefore decline to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly the respective ground of both parties stands decided against them.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these contra appeals relate to the following: (i) Whether the disallowance of Rs. 1,70,11,500/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of interest paid on borrowed funds, is justified where the assessee had given interest-free loans and advances to its subsidiaries and sister concerns while simultaneously borrowing interest-bearing funds; (ii) The correctness of the disallowance of Rs. 3,13,30,219/- under section 14A of the Act, which pertains to expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, and the related claim of relief of Rs. 4,42,817/- made suo-moto by the assessee under the same section; (iii) The validity of disallowances made out of staff welfare expenses (Rs. 1,04,73,000/-) and maintenance expenses (Rs. 21,99,842/-), specifically whether these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and the extent to which such expenses can be disallowed. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) - Interest on Borrowed Funds Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 36(1)(iii) allows disallowance of interest expenditure if it is not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal relied heavily on precedents including decisions of coordinate benches in the assessee's own cases for earlier assessment years and authoritative judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Notably, the doctrine of "mixed fund theory" was emphasized, where the interest disallowance is not warranted if the non-interest bearing funds exceed the interest-free loans or advances. Key precedents cited include:
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the issue was squarely covered by earlier decisions of coordinate benches in the assessee's own cases, which had consistently held that where the assessee's own funds exceed the interest-free loans and advances, no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) is warranted. The Tribunal found no new facts or circumstances justifying a different conclusion. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee had advanced interest-free loans to subsidiaries and sister concerns out of its own funds prior to 2006. The AO's disallowance was based on the premise that it was imprudent to pay interest on borrowed funds while advancing interest-free loans. However, the Tribunal noted that the interest-free loans were funded by the assessee's own funds, negating the AO's reasoning. Application of Law to Facts: Applying the mixed fund theory and the principle that interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) requires the borrowed funds to be used for non-business purposes, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance was not justified. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue relied on the AO's findings and upheld the disallowance, but the Tribunal found the Revenue's arguments unpersuasive in light of binding precedents and factual matrix. Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 1,70,11,500/- under section 36(1)(iii) was set aside and deleted. Issue (ii): Disallowance under Section 14A - Expenditure in Relation to Exempt Income Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules deals with disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court and other courts have held that where no exempt income (such as exempt dividend income) is earned during the year, section 14A is not attracted. Key precedents include:
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had declared no exempt income during the year under consideration. The suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 4,42,817/- made by the assessee itself was based on judicial pronouncements at that time, but the Tribunal declined to accept the claim for relief on this amount as it would convert the returned income into a loss, which was not justified. Regarding the Revenue's challenge to deletion of Rs. 3,13,30,219/- disallowance, the Tribunal observed that the issue was covered by earlier decisions in the assessee's own cases and by the Hon'ble Courts' rulings that section 14A is not applicable where no exempt income is earned. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee's records showed no exempt income for the relevant AY. The AO's disallowance was based on application of Rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules, but the CIT(A) and Tribunal found no merit in this when no exempt income was earned. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that section 14A and Rule 8D do not apply in the absence of exempt income, leading to deletion of the AO's disallowance and rejection of the assessee's claim for relief on suo-moto disallowance. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended for sustaining the disallowance, but the Tribunal found the Revenue's arguments contrary to judicial precedents and the factual position. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 3,13,30,219/- disallowance under section 14A and declined the assessee's claim for relief of Rs. 4,42,817/-. Issue (iii): Disallowance out of Staff Welfare and Maintenance Expenses Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Expenses must be incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes to be allowable deductions. Disallowance can be made if such expenses are partly for non-business purposes. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The AO disallowed 30% of staff welfare expenses and maintenance expenses. The CIT(A) deleted the entire disallowance relating to staff welfare expenses but restricted the disallowance out of maintenance expenses to Rs. 2,71,362/-. Both Revenue and assessee challenged this partial relief. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee had made payments to its sister concern, Usha International Ltd., which disclosed the same as income. The CIT(A) verified these facts and found no element of business expenditure in the disallowed portion. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings and noted absence of contradictory material from either party. It held that the disallowance restricted by the CIT(A) was justified. Treatment of Competing Arguments: Both parties challenged the CIT(A)'s order on this issue, but the Tribunal declined to interfere, affirming the CIT(A)'s balanced approach. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to Rs. 2,71,362/- and dismissed both parties' appeals on this issue. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "We therefore, following the reasoning given by the coordinate bench of Tribunal in the assessee's own cases ... set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this score and delete the disallowance of Rs. 1,70,11,500/- made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground stands decided in favour of the assessee." "The Hon'ble Courts have categorically held that where the assessee has not earned any dividend income forming part of the total income during the year under assessment, section 14A read with Rule 8D is not attracted. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the order of the ld. CIT (A), we hereby dismiss the ground taken by the Revenue." "... appreciating the facts in entirety and considering submissions/contentions/arguments of both parties, we are of the considered view that the claim of the assessee is not justified. Hence, this ground stands decided against the assessee." "We have given a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts of the case and submissions/contentions/arguments of both parties and are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) as none of these parties brought any material contradictory to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). We therefore, decline to interfere with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the respective ground of both parties stands decided against them." Core principles established include:
Final determinations on each issue were as follows:
|
