TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>GST interest under Section 50(3) allowed as deduction being compensatory not penal nature under Section 37(1)</h1> <h3>M/s. MSN Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 (4), Hyderabad.</h3> M/s. MSN Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 (4), Hyderabad. - TMI ISSUES: Whether interest paid under Section 50(3) of the GST Act on delayed payment of GST is penal or compensatory in nature and whether it is allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.Whether disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act is justified on advances given to certain entities when such advances are claimed to be made out of interest-free funds rather than borrowed funds. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The interest paid under Section 50(3) of the GST Act is 'compensatory in nature' and not penal, as the provision 'nowhere does it indicate that such interest is penal.' Therefore, such interest is 'allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act,' and the disallowance of Rs. 1,03,44,404/- is directed to be deleted.Where interest-free funds are available with the assessee sufficient to cover advances, a presumption arises that such advances have been made out of interest-free funds. The disallowance of Rs. 73,02,428/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is unsustainable in law in the absence of factual nexus or fund flow analysis establishing that advances were made from borrowed funds. Hence, the disallowance is directed to be deleted. RATIONALE: The Court applied the language of Section 50(3) of the GST Act, which mandates interest on 'undue or excess claim of input tax credit' but does not characterize such interest as penal. The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Lachmandas Mathuradas Vs. CIT, which held that interest on arrears of sales tax is compensatory and not penal, extending this rationale to GST interest.In respect of Section 36(1)(iii) disallowance, the Court applied the principle established by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd., which creates a presumption that advances are made from interest-free funds if such funds are sufficient. The Court emphasized the need for the Revenue to establish a direct nexus between borrowed funds and advances through factual evidence or fund flow analysis, which was absent. The Court rejected reliance solely on a statement without corroborative evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
