2018 (8) TMI 1043 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Interest Disallowance Partially Overturned; Business Nexus Established; Section 14A Issue Dismissed

Gulita Securities Ltd. Versus Dy. CIT, Cent. Cir. 4 (1), Mumbai

Gulita Securities Ltd. Versus Dy. CIT, Cent. Cir. 4 (1), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Applicability of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, on interest expenditure.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance of Interest Expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii):The assessee, engaged in the business of stock and share broking, filed a return for AY 2011-12 declaring a total loss. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition towards disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs. 2,14,27,061 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO observed that the assessee borrowed Rs. 35,38,83,555 from Shyam Equity Pvt Ltd and advanced Rs. 26,69,92,586 to the director for acquiring shares of Mirc Electronics Ltd. However, the acquisition did not materialize, and the amount was shown as 'advance for shares' in the balance sheet. The AO disallowed the interest expenditure, arguing that the funds were diverted for non-business purposes.The assessee contended that the loan was for business purposes, as it was in the business of trading shares. The assessee argued that since the loan was used for acquiring shares, it should be considered a normal business advance. The assessee cited various judicial precedents, including the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs Sridev Enterprises, to support their claim that the interest should not be disallowed if it was allowed in previous years without any change in circumstances.The tribunal, after considering the submissions, held that there was a direct nexus between the borrowed funds and the business purpose of acquiring shares. Therefore, the interest expenditure could not be disallowed under Section 36(1)(iii). The tribunal also noted the principle of consistency, as interest on similar loans was allowed in previous years without any change in facts.2. Applicability of Section 14A read with Rule 8D:The AO also invoked Section 14A read with Rule 8D, arguing that the interest expenditure was related to investments capable of earning exempt income. The assessee countered that no investment was made in shares of Mirc Electronics Ltd and thus, the provisions of Section 14A were not applicable.The tribunal noted that since the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted, the issue under Section 14A became academic and did not require further adjudication. Consequently, the ground challenging the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was dismissed as infructuous.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition made towards disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). The ground related to Section 14A read with Rule 8D was dismissed as it became academic following the deletion of the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii).Order Pronouncement:The order was pronounced in the open court on 03rd August 2018.