SHRO CHETANKUMAR RAOJIBHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 533/AHD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 December 2022AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds (capital) to cover the interest-free advances. Therefore, no disallowance of interest was warranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed interest expenditure of Rs. 42,70,782/-. The AO disallowed a portion of this interest, amounting to Rs. 14,11,367/-, on the grounds that interest-bearing funds were diverted for interest-free advances.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of interest expenditure is justified when the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to make interest-free advances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsingh B. Parmar, AR
Hearing: 05/09/2022Pronounced: 02/12/2022

(Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Parimalsingh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri Mukesh Thakwani, DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 05/09/2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 02/12/2022 आदेश/O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Vadodara in short referred to as ld.CIT(A)) under section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), dated 14.09.2020 pertaining to Asst.Year 2014-15.

2.

Sole issue in the present appeal relates to disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.

3.

As transpires from order of the authorities below, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. The AO found that the assessee had claimed interest expenditure of Rs.42,70,782/- and closing balance of interest free advances were of Rs.1,17,61,391/-/ The AO took a view that interest bearing funds

2 have been diverted for making interest free advance. Accordingly, he made disallowance of interest pertaining to the said adavances computed @12% of the interest free advances amounting to Rs.14,11,367/-. The same was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A).

4.

Before us, sole contention raised by the ld.counsel for the assessee was that it had sufficient interest free funds at its disposal in the form of capital of Rs.3,15,82,005/- for making investment in interest free advances of Rs.17,61,391/-. As evidence, he drew our attention to the audited accounts of the assessee for the impugned year placed before us pat PB Page No.13 to 19, more particularly, PB-13 containing balance sheet of the assessee reflecting the above amounts. He pointed out that interest free funds available with the assessee was more than the interest bearing funds, and the interest free funds were almost 2.69 times more than the advances. He contended that the law in this regard had been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. 410 ITR 466 (SC) that presumption in such cases was that interest free advances had been made out of interest free funds, warranting no disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act.

5.

The ld.DR was unable to controvert the factual contentions made by the ld.counel for the assessee before us, nor was he able to distinguish the decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Since the assessee has demonstrated the availability of sufficient own funds for the purpose of making interest free funds, the issue, we find, is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra), following which, we hold that no disallowance under section 36(1)(vii) is 3 warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs.14,11,367/- is hereby directed to be deleted.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →