Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions, dismisses revenue's appeal.

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, And Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Circle-2 (1), Kolkata Versus M/s. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, And Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Circle-2 (1), Kolkata Versus M/s. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. - ... Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
2. Disallowance of interest on borrowed capital with reference to interest-free loans granted to subsidiaries and group associate companies.
3. Disallowance of expenses on account of legal and professional fees related to long-term leases.
4. Disallowance of prior period expenditure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962:
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance of Rs. 58,27,209/- for AY 2009-10 and Rs. 75,24,948/- for AY 2012-13 made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed these amounts, asserting that any expenditure related to investments was liable for disallowance, irrespective of whether exempt income was earned. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not provide evidence that borrowed funds were used for investments and highlighted that the assessee had sufficient own funds. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's ruling that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is earned during the relevant year. Hence, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

2. Disallowance of Interest on Borrowed Capital with Reference to Interest-Free Loans Granted to Subsidiaries and Group Associate Companies:
The AO disallowed Rs. 81,15,597/- as interest on borrowed capital, asserting that interest-free advances to subsidiaries and associates should be capitalized. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the advances were for business expediency and not out of borrowed funds. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in S. A. Builders Ltd., which allows interest on borrowed funds if the advances are for commercial expediency. The Tribunal noted that the advances were for the assessee's business purposes and, therefore, allowable under Section 36(1)(iii). Thus, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

3. Disallowance of Expenses on Account of Legal and Professional Fees Related to Long-Term Leases:
The AO disallowed Rs. 6,01,800/- of legal and professional fees, considering them related to long-term leases. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, finding no basis for the AO's conclusion and noting that the assessee had already disallowed Rs. 6,03,500/- related to long-term leases. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as the revenue could not provide specific evidence to support the AO's disallowance. Therefore, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

4. Disallowance of Prior Period Expenditure:
The AO disallowed Rs. 1,07,70,503/- as prior period expenditure related to a proposed public issue of shares that was later abandoned. The CIT(A) allowed the expenditure, stating that it became a sunk cost when the public issue was abandoned, and thus deductible in the year the decision was made. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the Calcutta High Court's rulings in similar cases, which allow such expenditures in the year they are crystallized. Therefore, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all grounds of appeal raised by the revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The order was pronounced in the open court on 14th May, 2018.