SYNERGY APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3 (3) (2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on inappropriate facts as the assessee had not advanced funds to sister concerns but only invested borrowed funds in shares. The matter was set aside for fresh examination by the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee incurred interest expenditure on loans taken for share investments, which the Assessing Officer disallowed. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, citing cases related to interest-free advances to sister concerns.
What were the issues?
Whether interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds for making investments in shares is allowable as a business expense when the assessee has negative reserves.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 14.6.2019 passed by learned CIT(A) and it relates to A.Y. 2014-15.
The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs. 2.55 crore made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was sent to the assessee on several occasions. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.
The assessee is engaged in the business of making investment in shares. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has incurred interest expenditure of Rs. 2.55 crore on the loans taken by it. He also noticed that the assessee had made investment to the tune of Rs. 276.97 crore. Further, the AO also noticed that the assessee was having negative reserve balances. Accordingly, he noticed that the entire investments have been made out of 2 Synergy Appliances Pvt. Ltd.
current liabilities which stood at Rs. 287.96 crore. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer took the view that the loan funds have been fully utilized for making investment. Accordingly he took the view that the interest expenditure is not allowable as deduction and accordingly, disallowed interest claim of Rs. 2.55 crore. The same was confirmed by learned CIT(A).
We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee has stated before the tax authorities that the funds have been borrowed by it for investing in shares which is the business of the assessee. We also noticed that that the Assessing Officer also recorded in page No. 4 of the assessment order that the assessee company is engaged in the business of investment in shares. We noticed that learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by following certain decisions, which dealt with commercial expediency in giving interest free advances to sister concerns. In the instant case, available facts show that the assessee has not advanced any funds to its sister concern. It has only utilized borrowed funds for making investment in shares which is claimed to be business of the assessee. Since learned CIT(A) has proceeded to decide the issue on inappropriate facts, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at his end. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to his file for examining it afresh by properly considering the facts surrounding the issue. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Learned CIT(A) may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21.06.2022.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shah Brothers, West Singhbhum vs ACIT/DCIT, Cen Cir-1, RanchiITA 239/RAN/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026