M/S. CONWOOD CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT.LTDCONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIR-6, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if interest-free advances to sister concerns are less than the aggregate of own funds and interest-free loans taken, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is warranted. However, factual verification of these amounts was required.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in construction, advanced interest-free loans to sister concerns. The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of interest expenditure, initially citing Section 14A, but later implying Section 36(1)(iii) was applicable.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the correct disallowance of interest expenditure when interest-free loans were advanced to sister concerns. The applicability of Section 14A versus Section 36(1)(iii) was also a point of contention.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.2,118 citing313 ITR 340 · 2009 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Both appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by learned CIT(A)-47, Mumbai and they relate to A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenince.
In both the appeals, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of part of interest expenditure.
The assessee is engaged in the business of development and construction of the properties. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment of both the years by disallowing part of interest expenditure, for the reason that the assessee has advanced interest free loans to its sister concerns. We notice that the Assessing Officer has mentioned that the disallowance is being made under section 14A read with rule 8D in respect of interest free loans given by the assessee to the sister concerns.
2 M/s. Conwood Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
In A.Y. 2003-04 the Assessing Officer computed proportionate amount of interest expenditure at Rs. 33,01,216/- attributable to interest free loans given to sister concerns and reduced the same from “Work in progress” relating to “Shagun Project”. In the similar manner, the Assessing Officer computed the amount of interest expenditure attributable to interest free loans given to sister concerns at Rs. 23,57,733/- in AY 2004-05 and reduced the same from “Work in progress” relating to “Shagun Project”.
The Learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer in both the years by way of reducing the “Work in Progress” and hence the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal.
We have heard the parties and perused the record. We noticed that there appears to be lack of clarity in the mind of Assessing Officer in mentioning the section under which the impugned disallowance is made. The case of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has given interest free loans to sister concerns and hence proportionate interest expenditure attributable to such loans should be disallowed. However, the AO has mentioned that the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D are applicable. However, the said provisions are applicable only if the assessee has earned any exempt income. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee has not earned any exempt income and hence the question of invoking the provisions of section 14A will arise in the both the years under consideration.
Under the above set of facts, it has to be taken that that the Assessing Officer has made impugned disallowance in both the years under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, since according to the Assessing Officer the assessee has given interest free advances to its sister concerns out of interest bearing funds. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee has also borrowed interest free loans. The amount of interest free loans taken by the assessee together with its own funds would exceed the amount of interest free loans
3 M/s. Conwood Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. given to the sister concerns. The Ld A.R submitted that the presumption in that case is that the assessee has used the said “own funds and interest free loans” for giving interest free advances to the sister concerns. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that no disallowance out of interest expenditure is called for as per decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utility and Powers Ltd. (313 ITR 340).
We find merit in the above said contentions of Ld A.R, as the same is in accordance with the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court referred supra, i.e., if the amount of interest free loans given to sister concerns is less than the amount of aggregate of own funds and interest free loans taken by the assessee, then no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is called for. However, we notice that the factual aspects relating to quantum of own funds and interest free funds available with the assessee in both the years vis-à-vis interest free advances given to sister concerns require verification at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) in both the years and restore this issue to the file of AO for the limited purpose of verifying the factual aspects discussed above. If the aggregate amount of own funds and interest free funds available with the assessee exceeds the amount of interest free advances given to the sister concerns, then no disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is called for as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power (supra). With these directions, we restore this issue in both the years to the file of the Assessing Officer.
4 M/s. Conwood Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05.09.2022.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026