2025 (7) TMI 1232 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT deletes contingent liability and bogus purchase additions after proper verification but remands loan processing fees and section 57 interest disallowance matters

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 (1) (1), Ahmedabad Versus Shree Ga yatri Cottex Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 (1) (1), Ahmedabad Versus Shree Ga yatri Cottex Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad - TMI ISSUES: Whether the addition of contingent liability disallowance under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act was justified in absence of supporting evidence and TDS compliance.Whether deletion of addition on account of alleged bogus purchases was proper despite non-response of vendors to Section 133(6) notices and lack of primary documentary evidence.Whether loan processing fees should be treated as capital expenditure under Accounting Standard 16 or as allowable revenue expenditure.Whether disallowance of finance cost under Section 57 of the Act is justified without establishing a direct nexus between borrowed funds and exempt income from investments. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: On contingent liability disallowance: The deletion of addition of Rs. 1,50,81,767/- was upheld as the assessee furnished party-wise details during appellate proceedings and the Assessing Officer certified that the provision was on account of 'ascertained liability' eligible for deduction, with TDS made accordingly.On bogus purchases: The deletion of addition of Rs. 4,57,73,285/- was upheld since the parties responded to Section 133(6) notices during remand proceedings and confirmed transactions; ledger confirmations filed at appellate stage were accepted based on remand report.On loan processing fees: The matter was set aside for fresh examination because the assessee failed to explain the purpose of the loan; if the loan was for capital asset acquisition, fees must be capitalized per AS-16, otherwise allowable as revenue expenditure.On disallowance under Section 57: The disallowance of Rs. 37,31,239/- was set aside for reassessment to determine whether borrowed funds were used for investments yielding exempt income; mere assertion of self-generated funds without detailed evidence was insufficient. RATIONALE: The court applied statutory provisions including Section 37 (business expenditure), Section 133(6) (power to summon persons), Section 57 (disallowance of interest expense relating to exempt income), and Accounting Standard 16 concerning capitalization of expenses.The decision emphasized the importance of adducing primary evidence and the Assessing Officer's role in verifying facts via remand reports and notices under Section 133(6).For contingent liabilities and bogus purchases, the appellate authority's acceptance of additional evidence and remand reports was deemed proper and consistent with procedural fairness.Regarding loan processing fees and Section 57 disallowance, the court recognized the necessity of examining the purpose and source of funds, reflecting a doctrinal insistence on establishing a direct nexus between borrowed funds and exempt income before disallowing expenses.No dissenting or concurring opinions were noted; the judgment reflects adherence to established principles without doctrinal shifts.