M/S ORBIT RESORTS (P) LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ADDL. CIT, R-1, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 341/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 April 2025AY 2007-08Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the capital work-in-progress, making the allocation of interest expenditure unsustainable. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which confirmed additions related to interest expenditure capitalized in work-in-progress. The assessee had substantial interest-free funds available.

What were the issues?

Whether interest expenditure capitalized in work-in-progress is disallowable when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Kumar,CA &
For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Hearing: 07.04.2025Pronounced: 08.04.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 341/CHD/2019
ITA No. 342/CHD/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] & 342/CHD/2019 A.Y.2007-08 & 2012-13 2 dated 07.01.2019 and 11.01.2019 passed for assessment year 2007-08 and 2012-13 respectively.

2.

The solitary substantial grievance of the assessee in both the years is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.13,09,146/- and Rs.1,06,76,847/- in assessment year 2007-08 and 2012-13 respectively.

3.

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that assessee has filed return of income in both the years. It has declared loss in assessment year 2012-13 whereas positive income in assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has work-in-progress which was construed as a capital WIP and the AO has allocated interest expenditure towards WIP.

1.

Accordingly, he has disallowed proportionate interest expenditure. He made an addition of Rs. 13,09,146/- and Rs.2,34,39,318/-. This much interest expenditure was capitalized in the WIP. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in assessment year 2007-08 and partially deleted in assessment year 2012-13. Addition has been confirmed at Rs.1,06,76,847/-. & 342/CHD/2019 A.Y.2007-08 & 2012-13 3

4.

On due consideration of the record, we find that assessee has more interest free funds than total value of WIP. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards page No. 33 and 56 of the Paper Book filed in assessment year 2007-08 and 2012-13 respectively. On these pages, Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2012 and 31.03.2007 has been placed. The assessee has Rs.698 Cr interest free funds in assessment year 2007-08. Similarly, it has more than Rs.742 Cr in assessment year 2012-13. Thus, assessee has surplus funds upon him and it was not required to pay interest. The value of CWIP in assessment year 2007-08 is only Rs.13,09,14,640/-, as against this, the interest free fund was Rs.698 Cr. Thus, we are of the view that alleged interest free funds can take care of this capital work-in-progress and no interest expenditure is required to be allocated. For buttressing our above view, we rely upon the following judgements : a) ACIT Vs Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. 175 ITD 365 (Chd) b) Bright Enterprises (P) Ltd Vs CIT 381 ITR 107 (P&H.) c) CIT Vs Kapson Associates 381 ITR 204 (P&H.) d) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 398 ITR 209 (Pb.) e) CIT Vs Max India Ltd (2016) 388 ITR 81 (P&H) & 342/CHD/2019 A.Y.2007-08 & 2012-13 4 f) Gordrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) g) CIT Vs Reliance Ind Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) h) CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd 313 ITR 340-344 (Bom) i) CIT V/s Shapoorji Palongi & Co 423 ITR 220 (Bom) j) Decision of ITAT Chandigarh in ITA No. 184/Chd/2015

5.

In view of the above, no disallowance is sustainable.

We allow both the appeals and delete the disallowance.

6.

In the result, both appeals are allowed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →