STAR LOGISTICS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(4), CHENNAI
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 the assessee successfully explained that the interest-free loans to sister concerns were not out of interest-bearing funds but from available interest-free funds, including depreciation. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed interest expenditure on a bank loan as a business expense. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a portion of this interest, alleging that interest-bearing funds were diverted to sister concerns as interest-free loans. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowance of interest expenditure claimed on the ground of diversion of interest-bearing funds for interest-free loans to sister concerns is justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in 18/CIT(A)-15 dated 22.03.2019. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(4), Chennai for the assessment year 2015-16 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 27.12.2017.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO disallowing interest claimed u/s.36(1)iii) of the Act, for giving interest free funds to sister concerns.
Brief facts are that the assessee has obtained loan for an amount of Rs.7,59,33,550/- which comprised interest free loan and loan from Cholamandalam Investment and Finance for which no interest expenses was claimed during the year. The assessee has also obtained loan from bank amounting to Rs.1,65,37,554/- and incurred interest expenditure to the tune of Rs.38,11,423/-. This expenditure was claimed as business expenditure u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. The AO noted that the assessee has obtained loan from bank and given interest free loans to the tune of Rs.8,20,26,814/-. The AO also noted that interest free loans were available with the assessee at Rs.7,59,33,556/-. According to AO, interest bearing funds of Rs.60,93,264/- were diverted by the assessee for non- business purposes or given as interest free loans to various parties. Therefore, the AO recomputed the allowable interest out of the total interest expenses claimed at Rs.38,11,423/- and thereby made disallowance of Rs.14,04,336/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The ld.counsel for the assessee made alternative argument that the assessee has paid interest on vehicle loan of Rs.30.17 lakhs out of the total expenditure claimed at Rs.38,11,423/-. For the interest bearing funds diverted towards interest free loans advanced to sister concerns amounting to Rs.60,93,264/-, the assessee explained that the assessee has cash accruals in the shape of depreciation of Rs.2,15,64,569/- and cash equivalent at the end of the year is at Rs.11,99,585/-. According to him, this is sufficient to meet the interest free loans advanced to sister concerns and these are not out of interest bearing loan funds on which expenditure is being claimed. When these facts were confronted to ld.Senior DR, he could not controvert the factual situation. We noted that the assessee is able to explain that interest free loans advanced to sister concerns are not diverted out of interest bearing loans rather accrual of interest free funds, which is enough to meet out the same. Hence, we are of the view that this disallowance deserves to be deleted. We delete the disallowance and direct the AO accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the court on 4th February, 2022 at Chennai.
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 →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026