2021 (7) TMI 209 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal partially allows appeal, rejects leasehold land premium amortization. Upholds addition under Income-tax Act.

Owens-Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Income-Tax Officer Ward 7 (1) (1) Mumbai

Owens-Corning (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Income-Tax Officer Ward 7 (1) (1) Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance on amortization of the premium paid for leasehold land.2. Addition made under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Disallowance of swap charges on loans obtained by the assessee.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance on Amortization of the Premium Paid for Leasehold Land:The assessee challenged the disallowance on amortization of the premium paid for leasehold land. The Tribunal noted that this issue had already been decided against the assessee in its own case for the assessment year 2004-05, where reliance was placed on the Special Bench decision in Mukund Limited (106 ITD 23). Since the facts were undisputed, the Tribunal dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.2. Addition Made Under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee contested the addition made under section 41(1) concerning the remission of a loan from the Bank of Nova Scotia. The facts revealed that the loan of Rs. 90 crores was restructured, resulting in a remission of Rs. 46.50 crores, which was credited to the Capital Reserve Account and not offered to tax. The Assessing Officer added this amount under section 41(1), arguing that the assessee failed to provide a breakup of the loan and prove that the remission did not include interest.The Tribunal found that the remission involved only the principal portion of the loan, with no interest element, and no deduction had been claimed by the assessee in previous years for the principal portion. Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. (93 taxmann.com 32), the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of section 41(1) did not apply, as the waiver of loan did not amount to cessation of trading liability. The Tribunal also noted that the jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Colour Roof (India) Ltd. had followed the Supreme Court's decision, reinforcing the assessee's position. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.3. Disallowance of Swap Charges on Loans Obtained by the Assessee:The assessee challenged the disallowance of swap charges incurred for converting a loan from a floating to a fixed rate of interest. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had treated these charges as capital expenditure, not allowable under section 37(1).The Tribunal examined the documents and found that the swap charges were akin to interest, as the conversion from floating to fixed rate did not change the character of the transaction. The Tribunal referenced the jurisdictional High Court decision in CIT vs. D. Chetan & Co (390 ITR 36), which supported the assessee's contention that such charges were not speculative but part of regular business activities. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to a deduction for swap charges, allowing the grounds raised.General Ground:The Tribunal noted that the fourth ground was general in nature and did not require adjudication.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal dismissing the grounds related to amortization of the premium paid for leasehold land and allowing the grounds concerning the addition under section 41(1) and the disallowance of swap charges. The order was pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2021.