2014 (4) TMI 1252 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeal Partly Allowed, Interest Disallowance Upheld

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by treating repair expenses as revenue expenditure but upheld the disallowance under Section 14A and the ... Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - whether such expenses were incurred? - nexus between the Investment and Borrowed Fund - HELD THAT:- As far as the year under consideration is concerned, it is worth to mention that the same cannot be decided independently on the prevailing facts. On careful perusal of the balance sheet, it appears that there was increase in other investments as well as in addition to the investment as noted by AO - in the absence of a clear nexus that the internal accruals have been utilized towards impugned investments, it is difficult to believe the assessee’s submission that the internal accruals or assessee’s own funds have been used towards investment. Rather, it appears that the interest bearing borrowings have been utilized because the assessee has not controverted the said allegation. We find no force in this ground of the assessee and the same is hereby dismissed. Nature of expenses - repairs for water proofing expenses and replacement of corrugated sheets - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Such type of expenditure pertaining to waterproofing and related to corrugated sheets were nothing but Revenue expenditure. It is wrong to presume that an independent asset was created by the assessee. We are of the view that such type of expenditure pertaining to waterproofing and related to corrugated sheets were nothing but Revenue expenditure. It is wrong to presume that an independent asset was created by the assessee. As relying on own case [2012 (4) TMI 765 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] we hereby reverse the findings of the authorities below and direct to allow the ground of appeal. Addition of interest on the investment made in the subsidiary company by invoking the provisions of section 36(1) (ii) - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the investment made for purchase of shares of subsidiary company was a legitimate business activity of the assessee. According to us, the assessee is not in the business of finance, but a manufacturer of suitings. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that no disallowance was made in the past, therefore the Assessing Officer was not justified for the impugned disallowance in the year under consideration. Each year is an independent year. Facts of this year are to be seen independently and not to be governed by the decision taken in the past. AO had noted that the assessee was unable to prove that the own non-interest bearing funds have been utilized. Rather, it was held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had paid heavy interest on the loans and borrowings. - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D.2. Classification of expenditure on repairs as capital or revenue in nature.3. Disallowance of interest on investment in a subsidiary company under Section 36(1)(iii).Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D:The primary issue in the assessee's appeal was the disallowance of Rs. 31,87,067/- by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The AO noted that the assessee claimed exemption on dividend income and interest on UTI bonds but failed to prove that the investments were made from internal accruals rather than interest-bearing funds. The AO computed the disallowance initially as Rs. 9,02,897/-, which was later corrected to Rs. 31,87,067/-. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the provisions of Section 14A were rightly invoked and there was no demonstrative evidence to prove that the investments were made from internal accruals. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, found no clear nexus between internal accruals and the investments and upheld the disallowance, dismissing the assessee's ground.2. Classification of expenditure on repairs as capital or revenue in nature:The second issue concerned the disallowance of Rs. 25,11,328/- for repairs, which the AO treated as capital expenditure. The assessee claimed expenses for waterproofing and replacement of corrugated sheets as revenue expenditure. The AO and CIT(A) classified these as capital expenditures, arguing that they provided enduring benefits and added value to existing assets. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, stating that the expenditure was for preserving and maintaining existing assets, thus qualifying as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal referenced its own previous decision in the assessee's case and other case laws to support this conclusion, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.3. Disallowance of interest on investment in a subsidiary company under Section 36(1)(iii):In the Revenue's appeal, the issue was the deletion of Rs. 66,97,495/- being interest on investments made in the subsidiary company. The AO disallowed the interest, arguing that the investment was not for business expediency and was made to give undue advantage to the subsidiary. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the investment was a legitimate business activity and no disallowance was made in previous years. The Tribunal, however, sided with the AO, noting that the assessee failed to prove the use of non-interest-bearing funds for the investment. The Tribunal emphasized that each assessment year is independent and upheld the AO's disallowance, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision.Conclusion:The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by treating the repair expenses as revenue expenditure but upheld the disallowance under Section 14A and the interest disallowance on investments in the subsidiary. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, confirming the AO's disallowance of interest on the investment in the subsidiary company. The order was pronounced on April 29, 2014, in Ahmedabad.