Appeal partially upheld on premium, interest, and depreciation claims. Carry forward of losses issue dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the disallowance of the premium on redemption of preference shares and the interest paid on interest-free deposits to owners of premises. However, it allowed the claims regarding interest paid on alleged excessive deposits and depreciation on non-compete fee. The issue of carry forward of losses was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of premium on redemption of preference shares.
2. Disallowance of interest paid on account of interest-free deposits given to the owners of premises.
3. Disallowance of interest paid on the ground of alleged excessive unreasonable interest-free deposits to Jain Bros. Industries and Drip and Pipe Suppliers.
4. Disallowance of interest paid on the ground of alleged excess interest-free deposits to directors/relatives of directors.
5. Disallowance of depreciation on non-compete fee.
6. Carry forward of losses (not pressed by the assessee).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Premium on Redemption of Preference Shares:
The Assessee claimed an expenditure of Rs. 4,94,72,088 as premium on redemption of 4% redeemable preference shares. The AO disallowed this expenditure, following the precedent set in the assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2007-08, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the issue was identical to the previous years, where it was decided against the assessee based on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Gas Vs. CIT (11 ITR 549) (Cal). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order, reiterating that the premium paid for redemption of preference shares is of a capital nature and not an allowable expenditure.

2. Disallowance of Interest Paid on Account of Interest-Free Deposits Given to Owners of Premises:
The AO disallowed Rs. 17,00,630 out of the interest paid, reasoning that the interest-free deposits given to the owners of premises were not for commercial expediency but rather a favor to them. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, noting that the assessee failed to prove any nexus between interest-free funds and the interest-free advances or security deposits. The CIT(A) emphasized that the cost of borrowing was around 12.50%, contrary to the assessee’s claim of 5.3%. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, agreeing that the assessee had used borrowed funds for non-business purposes.

3. Disallowance of Interest Paid on Alleged Excessive Unreasonable Interest-Free Deposits to Jain Bros. Industries and Drip and Pipe Suppliers:
The AO disallowed Rs. 10,20,000 out of interest paid, considering the deposits given to Jain Bros. Industries and Drip and Pipe Suppliers as excessive. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, citing the same reasons as in the previous issue, emphasizing the cost of borrowing and the lack of a direct nexus between the interest-free funds and the deposits. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds in the form of share capital and reserves, far exceeding the deposits given. Following the Bombay High Court decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), the Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest was called for, as the deposits were presumed to be out of interest-free funds.

4. Disallowance of Interest Paid on Alleged Excess Interest-Free Deposits to Directors/Relatives of Directors:
The AO disallowed Rs. 28,87,625 out of interest paid, considering the deposits given to directors and their relatives as excessive. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, again emphasizing the cost of borrowing and the lack of a direct nexus between the interest-free funds and the deposits. The Tribunal, applying the same reasoning as in the previous issue, held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds, and therefore, no disallowance of interest was warranted.

5. Disallowance of Depreciation on Non-Compete Fee:
The AO did not take a view on depreciation on non-compete fee in the assessment order. The CIT(A), relying on the Delhi High Court decision in Sharp Business System Vs. CIT, held that non-compete fee is neither a revenue expenditure nor an intangible asset, and therefore not subject to depreciation. The Tribunal, however, noted that depreciation on non-compete fee was allowed in A.Y. 2006-07 and the asset had entered the block of assets. Citing the principle that once an asset enters the block of assets, it cannot be taken out, the Tribunal allowed the claim of depreciation, following its own decision in the assessee’s case for A.Y. 2007-08.

6. Carry Forward of Losses:
The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the premium on redemption of preference shares and the disallowance of interest paid on account of interest-free deposits given to the owners of premises. However, it allowed the claims related to the disallowance of interest paid on alleged excessive interest-free deposits and the depreciation on non-compete fee.

---