Tribunal upholds CIT(A) decisions, excludes strategic investments, restricts adhoc disallowance.

The tribunal partially allowed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on most issues, including deleting disallowances under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal confirmed the exclusion of strategic investments while computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2) and upheld that certain expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. However, the tribunal restricted the adhoc disallowance on certain expenses to 10% due to the possibility of personal use. The addition of alleged non-genuine purchases was deleted as proper documentation and certification supported their genuineness.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deleting disallowance made by the AO u/s.14A.
2. Deleting disallowance of Rs. 4,18,000/- u/s.37(2B) of the I.T.Act.
3. Deleting disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,61,376/-.
4. Deleting adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- on telephone expenses, vehicle expenses, etc.
5. Deleting addition of Rs. 3,50,19,655/- on account of alleged non-genuine purchases.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deleting disallowance made by the AO u/s.14A:
The assessee, a government contractor, had computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2) by excluding strategic investments in joint venture business projects. The AO did not accept this and made a disallowance of Rs. 3,54,957/-. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, observing that the AO erred by including investments that did not yield exempt income. The tribunal found the issue covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oriental Structural Engineers (P) Ltd. and other similar cases, upholding the CIT(A)’s decision to exclude strategic investments while computing disallowance under Rule 8D(ii).

2. Deleting disallowance of Rs. 4,18,000/- u/s.37(2B) of the I.T.Act:
The AO disallowed the expenditure towards advertisement in souvenir, brochures, etc., published by a political party. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that the expenditure was a donation to a political party and not covered under section 37(2B). The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order, confirming that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and was not personal in nature.

3. Deleting disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,61,376/-:
The AO observed that the assessee had made interest-free advances while paying interest on loans taken, leading to a disallowance of Rs. 4,61,376/- at 12% per annum. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that the assessee had sufficient surplus funds in the form of capital, and borrowed money was not used for advancing interest-free loans. The tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)’s decision, referencing the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in the case of Reliance Utilities Ltd., which established that if interest-free funds are sufficient to meet investments, interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes is deductible.

4. Deleting adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- on telephone expenses, vehicle expenses, etc.:
The AO made an adhoc disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- citing the possibility of personal use. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that the assessee had furnished evidence for each expenditure head, and the AO had no material to show personal use. The tribunal, however, found that personal elements in such expenses could not be ruled out and restricted the disallowance to 10% of the expenses.

5. Deleting addition of Rs. 3,50,19,655/- on account of alleged non-genuine purchases:
The AO added the entire purchases from 12 parties as non-genuine based on information from the Sales Tax Department’s website listing suspicious dealers. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, highlighting that the purchases were genuine, supported by invoices, account payee cheques, and certification by BMC authorities. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the assessee maintained proper records, and the materials were used in executing contracts, verified by BMC engineers and vigilance departments. The tribunal found no adverse material to suggest that the assessee received cash back against payments made, confirming the deletion of the addition.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the revenue’s appeal in part, upholding the CIT(A)’s decisions on most issues while partially allowing the revenue’s contention on the disallowance of personal expenses. The order was pronounced on 27/04/2016.

---