Assessee's Appeal Partly Allowed for Interest Disallowance

S.P. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1), Salem

S.P. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1), Salem - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii).
2. Disallowance under section 14A.
3. Maintainability of deduction under section 80-IA on 'Clean Development Mechanism' (CDM) receipts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii):
The first issue pertains to the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 5,73,224/- under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the alleged diversion of borrowed funds for non-business purposes. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed the disallowance based on the decision in Suryavanshi Holdings Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. S.A. Builders Ltd. 288 ITR 1 (SC).

The Tribunal observed that the law is well-settled: if borrowed capital is used for non-business purposes, proportionate disallowance of interest is justified. The burden of proof lies with the assessee to establish that borrowed funds were employed wholly for business purposes. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence to support the assessee's claim and the lack of clarity on the business of the assessee and its subsidiary/associate companies. However, the disallowance was made at a rate of 12% per annum without confirming if this was the actual interest rate suffered. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to allow the assessee to present its case, directing the AO to issue definite findings of fact.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A:
The second issue involves the disallowance of Rs. 17,25,894/- under section 14A, applying Rule 8D, due to the assessee's investment in equity capital of subsidiary companies. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, quoting the provision.

The Tribunal clarified that the AO can make a disallowance under section 14A only if not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding expenditure in relation to income not forming part of the total income. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's claim must be with reference to its accounts. The AO's dissatisfaction in this case was based on sound grounds, noting the assessee's expenditure on interest and investment in shares. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's case and confirmed the disallowance, with a directive to exclude the interest disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) to avoid double disallowance.

3. Maintainability of Deduction under Section 80-IA on 'Clean Development Mechanism' (CDM) Receipts:
The third issue concerns the maintainability of deduction under section 80-IA on CDM receipts. The AO, following the decisions in Liberty India v. CIT and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT, concluded that the relationship between power generation and carbon credit is not direct, thus disallowing the deduction. The CIT(A) treated the CDM receipt as a capital receipt, relying on the decision in Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT.

The Tribunal observed the dichotomy in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that a capital receipt would be excluded from total income, rendering the section 80-IA claim superfluous. The Tribunal clarified that a capital receipt is in lieu of a capital asset or source of income, not the income itself. The Tribunal concluded that the CDM receipt arises from the business of power generation using preferred technology and is a revenue receipt, not a capital receipt. The Tribunal confirmed the assessment of the CDM receipt as business income and the disallowance of the deduction under section 80-IA.

Conclusion:
The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal directing the AO to re-examine the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) and confirming the disallowance under section 14A and the assessment of CDM receipts as business income.