2015 (9) TMI 328 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Tax Authorities' Decisions on Deposit, Interest, and Travel Expenses for AY 2008-09/09-10

Commissioner of Income Tax-II Versus Kajaria Ceramics Ltd.

The High Court upheld lower authorities' decisions on excess security deposit, interest expenses disallowance, and foreign travel expenses disallowance ... Interest free deposit in favour of the sister concern - excess security deposit purportedly made by the Assessee in respect of renting of the premises from DEWPL - liability to TDS under Section 194H - Held that:- The making of the interest free deposit in favour of the sister concern was its business decision and it gained no undue advantage. On the second issue, it was held that the elements of income were not embedded in the reimbursement made to its sister concern and therefore the Assessee was not obliged to deduct TDS. As regards reimbursement made to KPL, as pointed out by the ITAT, it did not appear to have any element of income warranting deduction of tax at source under Section 194C of the Act. The ITAT also concurred with the view of the CIT (A) that since no element of income was embedded in the reimbursement, the Assessee was not obliged to deduct TDS. The decision entirely appears to be on factual basis. Relevant to AY 2009-10, the other issue concerns the travelling expenses paid to dealers. There was no basis for AO to come to the conclusion that this payment was actually in the nature of commission to the agents. It was noticed that the entitlement to foreign travel was not proportionate to the volume of business conducted through a particular dealer/sub-dealer. Anyone who achieved the actual sale target was entitled to visit the foreign destination. In order to characterize the payment as commission, for the purposes of Section 194H of the Act, it was essential first to establish the relationship of principal and agent, which admittedly was absent in the case of the Assessee. Consequently, the CIT (A) correctly held that the foreign travel expenses of the dealers could not be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Excess security deposit and interest expenses disallowance for AY 2008-09.2. Disallowance of expenses claimed for foreign travel of dealers and interest on excess security deposit for AY 2009-10.Analysis:Issue 1: Excess security deposit and interest expenses disallowance for AY 2008-09The Assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading, took premises on rent from a group company with an interest-free security deposit. The Assessing Officer (AO) found the deposit excessive and disallowed interest expenses. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT (A)) allowed the appeal, stating the deposit was a business decision. The ITAT upheld this decision. The High Court found the CIT (A) and ITAT's interpretation of the rent agreement clauses reasonable, dismissing the appeal.Issue 2: Disallowance of expenses claimed for foreign travel of dealers and interest on excess security deposit for AY 2009-10The AO disallowed expenses for foreign travel of dealers, viewing them as commission liable to TDS. Additionally, interest on the excess security deposit was disallowed. The CIT (A) held the travel expenses were not commission and the relationship between principal and agent was absent. The High Court agreed with the factual basis of the CIT (A) and ITAT's decisions, finding no substantial legal question. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the excess security deposit, interest expenses disallowance, and foreign travel expenses disallowance. The Court found the interpretations and factual determinations made by the CIT (A) and ITAT to be reasonable, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.