M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 385/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 September 2023AY 2017-1813 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that interest on borrowed funds for assets not yet put to use should be capitalized, but the assessee is eligible for depreciation on such capitalized interest. The Tribunal also ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made when no exempt income has been earned.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in construction and leasing, disputed the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds used for building construction and the disallowance under Section 14A. The AO disallowed interest on funds not yet put to use for the asset and also disallowed expenses under Section 14A despite no exempt income being earned.

What were the issues?

Whether interest on borrowed funds for an asset not yet put to use is allowable as revenue expenditure or should be capitalized, and whether disallowance under Section 14A is permissible without earning exempt income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii),Section 14A,Section 32,Section 43(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri C.R. Krishna & Sachin Mehta, CAs
For Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Hearing: 31.08.2023Pronounced: 06.09.2023

per the letter dated 01.09.2023. Therefore the assessee is eligible for depreciation as per section 32(1) r.w.s. 43(1) of the Act. We direct the AO to grant depreciation on interest capitalized of Rs.3,28,69,300 as per law and for subsequent years also. Accordingly, we allow ground No.1.3 in the above terms.

14.

Ground Nos. 2.1 to 2.4 raised by the assessee are in regard to disallowance made by the AO u/s. 14A of the Act even when there is no exempt income received by the assessee. We have gone through the financial statements of the assessee at Note No.21, the assessee has not shown any exempt income in the form of dividend or any other exempt income. It is not in dispute that the assessee has paid interest during the year. The ld. AR also relied on the various judgments including the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sterling Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT, 129 taxmann.com 116 where it is held that when there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made. During the year the assessee has not reported any exempt income from the investments made. There is also amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 1.4.2022 is not from retrospective effect as decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (supra). We further note that in assessee’s own case for AY 2013-14, the coordinate Bench in dated 19.1.2018 has held similar view in favour of the assessee. Considering the above judgments, we allow grounds No.2.1 to 2.4.

15.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 06th day of September, 2023.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →