TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessee fails to prove subsidiary's same business line, interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) disallowed despite favorable Section 14A ruling</h1> The Delhi HC upheld the disallowance of interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) as the assessee failed to demonstrate that its wholly owned subsidiary ... Disallowance of interest framed u/s 36(1)(iii) - failure on the part of the assessee to show that the wholly owned subsidiary was in the same line of business or would be said to qualify the prerequisites of the benefits which would flow from Section 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT:- We thus note that while it is true that the ITAT has proceeded to adopt the decision rendered by it and referable to AY 2009-2010 on an overall consideration of the facts which stood placed before the CIT (A) the deletion of the benefits that were claimed would not be sustained. Disallowance u/s 14A - As fairly concedes that the same is liable to be answered against the Revenue in light of the decision rendered in PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Qualification of benefits under Section 36(1)(iii) for loans to wholly owned subsidiaries.4. Application of Section 14A of the Act.Condonation of Delay:The appellant sought condonation of a 44-day delay in filing the appeal, which was allowed by the court after considering the reasons provided by the appellant. The application for condonation was disposed of accordingly.Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii):The appeal was directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concerning the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the ITAT erred in its decision, highlighting that the loans to wholly owned subsidiaries were from the appellant's own capital. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance based on interest rates, leading to the addition of a specific amount to the returned income. The appellant contended that the subsidiary was in the same line of business, qualifying for the benefits under Section 36(1)(iii).Qualification of Benefits for Loans to Wholly Owned Subsidiaries:The appellant provided detailed arguments, including the subsidiary's heavy losses, the loans extended, and the interest charged, citing relevant legal precedents such as the decision in S.A. Builders vs. CIT. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the arguments and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition based on the nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business, following the principles of commercial expediency.Application of Section 14A of the Act:Regarding Section 14A of the Act, the appellant conceded that the issue should be decided against the Revenue based on the precedent set in PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. Consequently, the court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it based on the arguments presented and the applicable legal principles.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of delay condonation, interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), qualification for benefits under the same section, and the application of Section 14A of the Act, providing a detailed overview of the judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
