VINEET SOOD & SONS HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6371/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 August 2022AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since interest-free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to cover interest-free loans given, no disallowance of interest expenditure was warranted. Similarly, as no investment was made from interest-bearing funds, no disallowance under Section 14A was called for.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed interest expenditure and expenses under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of interest expenditure and expenses under Section 14A. The CIT(A) sustained these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of interest expenditure is justified when interest-free funds are available. Whether disallowance under Section 14A is justified when investments are not made from interest-bearing funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 01.08.2022Pronounced: 30.08.2022

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-10, New Delhi dated 31.07.2018.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made at Rs.35,68,647/- out of expenditure on interest and further erred in ignoring the fact that there was correlation of raising of loans and advancing of loans.

2. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs.8,95,915/- under section 14A and further erred in ignoring the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Tele Ventures Ltd.”

3.

The assessee filed return of income declaring loss of Rs.9,05,09,042/- which has been assessed at a loss Rs.8,60,44,480/- vide order u/s 143(3).

Interest Expenditure:

4.

The AO observed that the assessee has taken interest bearing loan of Rs.20,74,63,361/- and claimed an amount of Rs.3,54,32,773/- u/s 157 against the income shown u/s 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO also observed that on detailed analysis of submission, it was noticed that a portion of the funds have been given an interest free loans which means no taxable income is being derived from. After analysis, the AO disallowed interest expenses to the tune of Rs.35,68,647/-.

5.

We have examined this issue independently and find that the capital for the consequent three years of 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 stands at Rs.92.93 Cr., Rs.83.32 Cr. and Rs.90.56 Cr. respectively. The total interest free loans given were to the tune of Rs.12.16 Cr., Rs.22.82 Cr. and 22.94 Cr. The same are tabulated as under:

Particulars 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Capital 92,93,36,100 83,32,11,500 90,56,48,000 Interest free 14,16,62,300 22,82,68,500 92,94,12,000 loans/advances

6.

Thus, we find that the interest free own funds are much more than the interest free loans/advances given. Hence, relying on the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in CA No. 37 of 2019 order dated 02.01.2019 authored by Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in the case of CIT (LTPU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., we hold that when the interest free funds were available to the assessee which are sufficient to meet the investment, it would be presumed that the investments were made from interest free funds available to the assessee. Hence, no disallowance on account of any interest is called for. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed.

Disallowance u/s 14A:

7.

The AO disallowed the following amounts u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D:

Under Rule 8D(i) – 0 Under Rule 8D(ii) – Rs.7,72,758 Under Rule 8D(iii) – Rs.31,23,157

8.

The investment in the securities was to the tune of Rs.2.46 Cr. The exempted income earned by the assessee was Rs.4,28,686/-. Since, the facts reveal that no investment was made from the interest bearing funds, we hold that no disallowance is called for. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/08/2022.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →