2016 (11) TMI 1123 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Appeals Outcome: 2003-05 dismissed, 2009-10 allowed. Notional interest upheld, property tax disallowance reversed.

Asian Paints Ltd. Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax –LTU Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai and Asian Paints Ltd. (Erstwhile Technical Instruments Manufactures (India) Limited) Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10 (1), Mumbai and Vica-Versa

The appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 and the revenue for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 were dismissed. The appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. ... Disallowance of notional interest - interest free loan given to wholly owned subsidiaries - Held that:- CIT(A) was of the correct view that the Assessing Officer has wrongly declined the interest on the interest free loan to APIC Ltd. for the A.Y.2001-02, 2002-03 and 2005-06 because the said loan was for the business purpose. Similarly the assessee company advanced interest free loan of ₹ 100,02,00,000/- to TIMI Ltd. so as to enable it to liquidate loans it had taken from its old shareholders. M/s. TIMI Ltd. was the owner of assessee’s corporate office and assessee had taken the office on rent. Assessee charged interest up to 10.09.2001, the date when TIMI Ltd. became its subsidiary to meet with the requirements of RBI regulations and when TIMI Ltd. became its subsidiary it stopped charging interest. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest on account of interest free loan given to TIMI Ltd. to the tune of ₹ 10,00,20,000/- but the CIT(A) has allowed the same in view of the law settled by the Mumbai High Court in case CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd.[2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] and Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders Ltd. V/s. CIT [2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT ] and Hero Cycles P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (11) TMI 1314 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]- Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance on property tax - non running business - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the assessee company can purchase the property for the business purpose. The important documents has been filed by the assessee company which lies at page 25 of the paper book in which the lesser MIDC has leased out the land to the lessee M/s. Asian Paints Ltd. and in view of the said receipt the assessee paid an amount of ₹ 60,87,581/- and assessee paid property tax to the tune of ₹ 60,87,581/- during the relevant assessment year which has been declined on the ground of that the assessee did not do the business. The receipt lies at page 25 of the paper book also speaks about the purpose in which the purpose has been written for factory. Moreover, the allotted land was in nature of industrial land in MIDC area, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. It is not a case where new factory has been established by the assessee. The company of the assessee is old and acquired the industrial plot whose money, only property tax has been paid to the tune of ₹ 60,87,581/-. It is not necessary that after acquiring the right upon industrial plot the assessee should immediately construct the building and to start any another unit collateral to his object. The companies are working in accordance with its object. The incorporation date of the company is 29.12.1955. Thus Assessing Officer is hereby directed to allow the property tax for the relevant assessment year - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of unadjusted balances in employees' accounts written off during the year under prior period expenditure.2. Deletion of disallowance of notional interest on interest-free loans given to wholly-owned subsidiaries.3. Disallowance of expenditure incurred on account of property tax paid for land.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Unadjusted Balances in Employees' Accounts Written Off During the Year Under Prior Period Expenditure:The assessee filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 2,27,72,31,850/-. The assessment was completed with a total income of Rs. 242,04,36,965/-. The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 25,94,034/- being unadjusted balances in employees' accounts written off during the year under prior period expenditure. The CIT(A) reconsidered the matter and disallowed the amount. During the proceedings, the assessee did not press this ground, leading to the issue being decided against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee on this ground was dismissed.2. Deletion of Disallowance of Notional Interest on Interest-Free Loans Given to Wholly-Owned Subsidiaries:The revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance of notional interest of Rs. 2,62,74,000/- on interest-free loans given to wholly-owned subsidiaries. The CIT(A) found that the loans were given for business purposes and that the assessee had substantial business connections with the subsidiaries. The loans to Pentasia Investments Ltd., Asian Paints Industrial Coatings Ltd., and TIMI Ltd. were deemed to be for business purposes. The CIT(A) relied on the decisions of the Mumbai High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. and the Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. V/s. CIT, concluding that the disallowance of interest was not justified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the loans were given for business purposes and that the CIT(A) had correctly applied the law.3. Disallowance of Expenditure Incurred on Account of Property Tax Paid for Land:The assessee claimed expenditure of Rs. 60,87,581/- on property tax for land at Turbhe. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure on the ground that there was no business activity on the land. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. The assessee argued that the property was acquired for business purposes and that the expenditure should be allowed. The Tribunal found that the assessee had acquired leasehold rights for industrial land and paid property tax, even though no construction was shown in the relevant year. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was for business purposes and allowed the property tax expenditure, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.Conclusion:The appeals filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2003-04 and the revenue for A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 were dismissed. The appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 was allowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the deletion of disallowance of notional interest and reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on the disallowance of property tax expenditure. The order was pronounced in the open court on 23rd September 2016.