SHREE GEETA TRADING CO.,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PATAN
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that temporary deposits of surplus funds at a lower interest rate do not constitute a diversion of interest-bearing funds. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's plea.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenses on borrowed funds, arguing that the assessee lent money to others at a lower interest rate than it paid on its own borrowings. The assessee contended that these were temporary surplus funds utilized optimally.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of interest is justified when temporary surplus funds are lent at a lower rate than borrowed funds.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: Shri Pramod Kumar]
By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 28th November 2013 passed by the CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, upholding the disallowance of Rs.5,32,280/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2010-11.
To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material facts are required to be taken note of. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that while the assessee has borrowed monies from relatives @ 18%, the assessee has extended loans/advances to certain persons at lesser rates (12% or 15%). For this reason, the Assessing Officer disallowed the excess interest paid (i.e. difference between 18% and 12% /15%) on the borrowings. The disallowance was for an amount of Rs.7,12,421/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. Learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before me.
I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position.
SMC-ITA No. 517/Ahd/2014 Shree Geeta Trading Co.Vs. ITO Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 2 of 3 5. I have noted the main contention of the assessee is that the deposits which were placed by the assessee @ 12% interest were only in respect of temporary surplus funds and thus constituting optimum utilization of idle money for short periods. My attention was also invited to the order of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Patel Jayantilal Bhavanbhai & Co. Vs. ITO in ITA No.689/Ahd/2012 dated 06.12.2013, wherein, on materially identical facts, the Tribunal has held that such temporary borrowing of funds at a lower rate would not constitute diversion of interest bearing funds at lower rates. While doing so, the co- ordinate bench has observed as follows:- “6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A), and copies of various account of parties, and account statement of the assessee, as filed in the compilation before me. I find that the AO himself has admitted that the assessee is dealing with the purchase and sale of agriculture produce, which is apparently seasonal business. I find that the assessee has prudently used its money not immediately required in the business of purchase and sale of agricultural produce and by depositing the same with different parties, and has earned 6% per annum interest thereon. It is not a case of diversion of funds by the assessee. I find that there are number of entries of deposits and withdrawals in the account of three parties, copies of which has been filed in the compilation before the Tribunal. The opening and closing balance in the account of these parties has a huge difference. I find that CIT(A) has not given any valid reason for confirming the addition made by the AO. The assessee has tried to make best use of the idle money for short period, whenever possible, and it is not a case of diversion of borrowed money to the third party. In these facts of the case, I find that no case of disallowance of interest could be made out by the Revenue, and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee, and the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. The views so expressed by the co-ordinate bench apply to the present facts and circumstances as well. There is no dispute that the short term deposits @ 12% were temporary in nature and could thus be indeed viewed as optimum utilization of surplus funds. That exactly was the situation before the co-ordinate bench. Respectfully following the views of the co-ordinate bench, I uphold the plea of the assessee and, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance of Rs.5,32,280/-. In the result, appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 2nd 7. February, 2018. Sd/-
Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 2nd day of February, 2018 **bt
SMC-ITA No. 517/Ahd/2014 Shree Geeta Trading Co.Vs. ITO Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 3 of 3 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad
Date of dictation: .....two pages dictation pad attached-.........02.02.2018 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member: .. 02.02.2018....... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S.: .... 02.02.2018.. . 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement:… 02.02.2018... 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk : ... 02.02.2018.... 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk : ……………………………. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: ……
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 Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026