2016 (5) TMI 933 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal allows appeal on interest-free advance, disallowance under various sections dismissed

M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Ltd. Versus The Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

M/s Vardhman Chemtech Private Ltd. Versus The Addl. CIT, Chandigarh - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of proportionate interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act.3. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Proportionate Interest under Section 36(1)(iii):The assessee company had given an interest-free advance of Rs. 7,35,45,100 to its fully owned subsidiary, M/s Vardhman Life Sciences Private Limited. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed interest at 12% on this advance, amounting to Rs. 33,92,141, under section 36(1)(iii), claiming it was not for business purposes. The assessee argued that the advance was for business purposes, specifically for manufacturing raw materials used by the assessee, which was currently imported from China at a higher cost.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's disallowance, stating that since the subsidiary had not started manufacturing, the advance was not for procuring raw materials but for starting the subsidiary's business. The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of Abhishek Industries.Upon appeal, it was held that the advance was indeed for business purposes. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in S.A. Builders, which stated that advances made on grounds of commercial expediency are allowable. The Tribunal concluded that the advance to the subsidiary was to benefit the assessee by ensuring cheaper and regular supply of raw materials. Additionally, it was noted that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to make the advance, presuming it was made from these funds. Thus, the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was deleted.2. Disallowance under Section 14A:The AO made a disallowance of Rs. 40,28,526 under section 14A read with Rule 8D, as the assessee had invested Rs. 12,57,97,435 in its associate concern but earned no exempt income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify if any exempt income was earned and to delete the disallowance if none was earned, citing the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Lakhani Marketing.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's reliance on CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, which mandates disallowance even if no exempt income is earned. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, which states that judicial decisions override circulars. Thus, in the absence of exempt income, no disallowance under section 14A was warranted.3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia):The AO disallowed Rs. 64,37,342 under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on service fees paid for availing Letter of Credit services. The assessee contended that the payment was made to scheduled banks, exempting it from TDS under section 194A(3)(iii).The CIT(A) agreed, stating that the payment to scheduled banks for opening letters of credit was in the nature of interest as per section 2(28A) and exempt from TDS under section 194A(3)(iii). The Tribunal upheld this view, confirming that no TDS was required, and thus, the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable.Conclusion:- The appeal of the assessee regarding the disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was allowed.- The appeal of the Revenue regarding the disallowance under section 14A was dismissed.- The appeal of the Revenue regarding the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was dismissed.