Tribunal rules against interest expenses in work in progress, disallowance unjustified. Revenue appeal dismissed.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that interest expenses should not be included in the closing work in progress (WIP) and that the disallowance of the differential interest was unjustified. The tribunal emphasized that the interest costs were not directly attributable to the WIP and noted the positive net interest income of the assessee. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s decision was confirmed, with the cross-objection of the assessee being dismissed as withdrawn.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the interest expenses should be included in the closing work in progress (WIP).
2. Whether the differential interest paid to the bank and charged from the sister concern should be disallowed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Interest Expenses in Closing Work in Progress (WIP):

The Revenue argued that the interest paid on a loan taken for business purposes should be included in the closing WIP. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee, engaged in real estate development, had taken a loan from Andhra Bank for working capital, which was used for construction activities. The AO contended that the interest paid on this loan should be directly attributed to the construction activities and thus included in the closing WIP, relying on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. British Paint India Pvt. Ltd. The AO added Rs. 1,59,27,795/- to the income of the assessee and the closing WIP.

The assessee argued that the loan was for working capital, not specifically for construction, and thus the interest should be considered an indirect expense. The assessee referred to Accounting Standard 2 (AS-2) issued by ICAI, which states that interest and other borrowing costs are not usually included in the cost of inventories. The CIT(A) supported the assessee's view, noting that the loan was utilized for various purposes, including administrative expenses and advances to a unit where the assessee had a business interest. The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, concluding that the interest expenses were not directly attributable to the WIP.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the interest cost should not be added to the inventories as per AS-2. The tribunal also noted that the assessee had a positive net interest income, as the interest received from the sister concern was higher than the interest paid to the bank. The tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed the deletion of the addition.

2. Disallowance of Differential Interest:

The AO disallowed the differential interest of Rs. 54,54,724/- on the grounds that the assessee paid a higher interest rate (18.25% p.a.) to the bank while charging a lower interest rate (12% p.a.) from the sister concern, MDC. The AO argued that this practice was against the basic principle of earning profits and made the addition to the income of the assessee.

The assessee contended that the interest received from MDC was Rs. 3,37,40,072/-, which was higher than the interest paid to the bank. The assessee also argued that the advance to MDC was made out of commercial expediency, as the assessee held a 50% share in MDC's profits. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had sufficient own funds and that the loan to MDC was for business considerations. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's ground on statistical purposes, noting that no separate addition of Rs. 54,54,724/- was made by the AO.

The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the assessee had a positive net interest income and that the advance to MDC was made for commercial expediency. The tribunal also highlighted that the Revenue had not made any disallowance of interest in the preceding year. The tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:

The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the interest expenses should not be included in the closing WIP and that the differential interest disallowance was not warranted. The cross-objection of the assessee was also dismissed as withdrawn.

---