2020 (12) TMI 558 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decisions on Interest Disallowance & Section 14A - Revenue Appeal Dismissed

DCIT, Cir. 3 (1) (1) Ahmedabad Versus Priyal International P. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the ld. CIT(A) in a case involving disallowance of interest on advance for purchasing immovable property and ... Addition of interest on advance given for purchase of immovable property u/s 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT:- Similar issue of issuance has been raised in earlier years also i.e. from 2011-12 to 2012-13. In all these years, such disallowances were deleted and claim of the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal. We have gone through the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal on this issue. We do not find any dissimilarity of facts of this year with that of earlier years. As noted in the assessment order itself that the assessee has sufficient interest free and own funds so as to make investment/advances. In number of authoritative judgments it is held that when there are substantial interest free and own funds, presumption would be that the investment and/or advances were made out of such funds. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly following the orders of the Tribunal in the case of assessee for the earlier years, we uphold action of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble jurisdictional high Court in the case of Nirma Credit & Capital P. Ltd.[2017 (9) TMI 485 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that for application of Rule 8D(2), disallowance of expenditure to be considered should be net of interest i.e. interest paid minus interest received. In the present case, the assessee has earned higher interest income than the interest paid on the borrowed funds. We find that fact the present case is similar to the issue in the case of Nirma Credit & Capital and therefore, in our view this case law supports the case of the assessee. Moreover, ITAT in the assessee's own case for earlier years also allowed similar claim of the assessee. The facts in the present year is also similar to the facts of earlier years, and therefore, following the consistency with the earlier orders, we allow the claim of the assessee, and dismiss the ground of appeal of the Revenue. Issues:1. Disallowance of interest on advance given for purchase of immovable property under section 36(1)(iii).2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act.Issue 1: Disallowance of interest on advance for purchase of immovable property under section 36(1)(iii):The Revenue appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of interest on advance given for the purchase of immovable property. The AO made a disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) based on interest-free advances given by the assessee to certain companies. The ld. CIT(A) rectified the disallowance amount to &8377; 51,84,596/-, contrary to the Revenue's mentioned figure of &8377; 1,19,90,822/-. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on previous years' judgments and the sufficiency of the assessee's interest-free and own funds for making investments/advances. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.Issue 2: Disallowance under section 14A of the Act:The ld. AO disallowed &8377; 2,88,48,738 under section 14A after noticing the assessee's investments that would yield tax-free income. The assessee explained that investments were made from own funds, resulting in positive interest income. The AO applied Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A to estimate the disallowance. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim, considering the positive net interest income earned by the assessee and citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the interest income exceeded interest expenses, aligning with the principles laid down in the Nirma Credit & Capital case. The Tribunal found consistency with earlier years' decisions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in both issues, upholding the decisions of the ld. CIT(A) based on the sufficiency of the assessee's funds for investments and the positive net interest income earned, thus disallowing the additions made by the ld. AO.