<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (11) TMI 1344 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462646</link>
    <description>ITAT Bangalore allowed the appeal and deleted the disallowance of Rs. 11,27,328/- under section 40A(2)(b). The assessee paid 18% interest on unsecured loans from directors and relatives, which the AO restricted to 14% (secured loan rate). The Tribunal held that unsecured loans naturally carry higher interest rates than secured loans due to different risk profiles. The 18% rate was reasonable and aligned with market rates for unsecured business loans (18-22% from private banks). Section 40A(2)(b) requires proof of excessiveness and unreasonableness, which the Revenue failed to establish. The commercial realities and statutory borrowing restrictions justified the higher interest rate on related-party unsecured loans.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 17:35:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=834263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 1344 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462646</link>
      <description>ITAT Bangalore allowed the appeal and deleted the disallowance of Rs. 11,27,328/- under section 40A(2)(b). The assessee paid 18% interest on unsecured loans from directors and relatives, which the AO restricted to 14% (secured loan rate). The Tribunal held that unsecured loans naturally carry higher interest rates than secured loans due to different risk profiles. The 18% rate was reasonable and aligned with market rates for unsecured business loans (18-22% from private banks). Section 40A(2)(b) requires proof of excessiveness and unreasonableness, which the Revenue failed to establish. The commercial realities and statutory borrowing restrictions justified the higher interest rate on related-party unsecured loans.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>