2016 (7) TMI 1439 - AT - Income Tax

Interest on loans to subsidiaries allowed; disallowance rejected. Lease rental deductions granted; disallowances deleted. Sales tax liability disallowed if paid timely.

Afcons Infrastructure Limited Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–8 (1), Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai, and Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–8 (1), Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai Versus Afcons Infrastructure Limited and vice-versa and Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–8 (1), Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai Versus Afcons Infrastructure Limited

Afcons Infrastructure Limited Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–8 (1), Aayakar Bhawan Mumbai, and Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range–8 ... Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of interest on loans to subsidiaries.2. Disallowance under section 14A for interest expenses related to tax-free income.3. Depreciation on leased assets.4. Disallowance of payments to contractors.5. Disallowance of consultation fees to Meteo Consult, Netherlands.6. Deduction for sales tax liability.7. Interest under section 234D.8. General grounds and right to amend grounds of appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Interest on Loans to Subsidiaries:The assessee challenged the disallowance of interest on loans advanced to subsidiaries. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee borrowed funds at an average rate of 19% but advanced loans to subsidiaries at 11%. The AO disallowed the differential interest amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) restricted disallowance to incremental advances post-31st March 1996 at 15.44% interest rate. The Tribunal held that loans to Afcons Pauling (India) Ltd. were for commercial reasons, based on the Supreme Court's decision in S.A. Builders and previous Tribunal orders. For other subsidiaries, the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. Thus, no disallowance of interest was warranted.2. Disallowance Under Section 14A:The AO disallowed Rs. 86.28 lakh for interest expenses related to tax-free income. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the AO to exclude investments made in years with reduced loan liability and apply a 15.44% interest rate. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds for investments and directed no disallowance under section 14A, aligning with the Bombay High Court's decisions in HDFC Bank Ltd. and Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.3. Depreciation on Leased Assets:The AO treated lease arrangements as financial transactions, disallowing principal amounts of lease rentals but allowing interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the lease agreements to be operational leases, allowing full lease rental deductions. Alternatively, if treated as financial transactions, the assessee would be eligible for depreciation. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, allowing lease rental deductions.4. Disallowance of Payments to Contractors:The AO disallowed payments to various contractors, including Rs. 14,76,291 to Ocean Tech, due to lack of verification. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance for Ocean Tech. The Tribunal found sufficient documentary evidence proving the payment's authenticity and deleted the disallowance.5. Disallowance of Consultation Fees to Meteo Consult, Netherlands:The AO disallowed Rs. 7,57,807 paid to Meteo Consult, Netherlands, under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source, treating it as fees for technical services. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal found the payment to be for general weather forecast data, not technical services or royalty, and not taxable in India under the India-Netherlands DTAA. Thus, no tax deduction was required, and the disallowance was deleted.6. Deduction for Sales Tax Liability:The AO disallowed sales tax liability of Rs. 50.48 lakh. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Rs. 42,52,221 as the liability crystallized during the year. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction if paid within the stipulated period under section 43B.7. Interest Under Section 234D:The assessee did not press grounds related to interest under section 234D due to the small amount involved. These grounds were dismissed as 'not pressed.'8. General Grounds and Right to Amend Grounds of Appeal:General grounds (19 and 20) were dismissed as they did not require adjudication.Separate Judgments:The Tribunal's judgments addressed both the assessee's and the Department's appeals comprehensively, providing relief or upholding disallowances based on the merits of each issue. The Tribunal's detailed analysis ensured adherence to legal principles and precedents, resulting in a thorough and fair resolution of the disputes.