2017 (9) TMI 48 - HC - Income Tax

High Court rules in favor of respondent-assessee in tax dispute over interest disallowance, emphasizing commercial justifications.

The Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee in a tax dispute involving the disallowance of interest on lending to a sister concern. ... Disallowance of interest on borrowed funds on account of diversion by the assessee to its sister concern - Commercial expediency - Held that:- CIT (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal both, after examining facts on record, found that there was sound commercial expenses in the assessee financing activities of the sister concern, who was acting as sales agent of the assessee and was otherwise in dire financial constraint.Also Section 37 states that the expression 'for the purpose of business' includes expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency See Hero Cycles P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (11) TMI 1314 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] Advance to subsidiary pursuant to undertaking given to financial institution by the assessee to provide additional margin to subsidiary to meet working capital for meeting cash losses could not be disallowed as business expenditure. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:1. Disallowance of interest on lending to sister concern by the respondent-assessee.2. Interpretation of commercial expediency in allowing business expenditures.3. Application of legal principles in determining the allowability of interest on borrowed funds.Issue 1: Disallowance of interest on lending to sister concern:The Revenue disputed the Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance of interest on funds lent to a sister concern by the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the expenditure as part of the funds were diverted for funding the sister concern. However, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal both found commercial justification in the assessee's financing activities for the sister concern, which was exclusively promoting sales of the assessee's products and facing financial constraints. The Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in S.A.Builders Ltd case, emphasized that the advances were made in the interest of the assessee's own business, thus justifying the deletion of the disallowance.Issue 2: Interpretation of commercial expediency:The High Court and other Income Tax authorities were guided by the principle of commercial expediency in determining the allowability of interest on borrowed funds. Citing precedents like Atherton vs. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd, the Court highlighted that expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency, even if benefiting a third party, should be considered allowable as business expenditure. The Court stressed that the concept of 'commercial expediency' encompasses a wide range of expenses that a prudent businessman would undertake for business purposes, even if not legally obligated to do so.Issue 3: Application of legal principles on borrowed funds interest:The Supreme Court's decisions in cases like S.A.Builders Ltd and Hero Cycles P. Ltd were instrumental in shaping the analysis of whether interest on borrowed funds should be allowed as business expenditure. The Court reiterated that loans given to sister companies as a measure of commercial expediency should be permitted. In the case at hand, the Court held against the Revenue, dismissing all three tax appeals based on the commercial justifications presented by the respondent-assessee in financing the sister concern, aligning with the principles of commercial expediency in business expenditures.In conclusion, the judgment by the Gujarat High Court addressed the issues of disallowance of interest on lending to a sister concern, the interpretation of commercial expediency in business expenditures, and the application of legal principles in determining the allowability of interest on borrowed funds. The decision emphasized the importance of commercial justifications and business expediency in allowing such expenditures, ultimately ruling against the Revenue and in favor of the respondent-assessee in all three tax appeals.