SURENDRAKUMAR P. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 17 (3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4993/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 September 2019AY 2013-144 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 interest paid to related parties at 18% was not excessive or unreasonable, especially since interest paid to unrelated parties ranged between 15% to 18%. Therefore, the addition made on account of interest was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid interest on unsecured loans at 18% to related parties, while paying 12% to unrelated parties. The Assessing Officer disallowed the differential interest, considering it excessive and unreasonable.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the interest paid by the assessee to specified persons under Section 40A(2)(b) was excessive or unreasonable, warranting disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(2)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Jain-Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR, Shri R.M. Jain-Ld. AR

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Bench: -

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2013-14 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-28 Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-28/IT-

Surendra Kumar P.Jain 164/303/ACIT-17(3)/2016-17 dated 15/06/2018 on following grounds of appeal: -

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the Order of the Assessing Officer.

2. Your appellant state that interest paid on unsecured loan to person specified u/s. 40A(2)(b) @18% is reasonable and not excess.

3. Your appellant therefore prays that addition made on account of interest paid may please be deleted.

As evident from grounds of appeal, the only issue under consideration before us is the reasonableness of the rate of interest paid by the assessee to certain persons as specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 2.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident individual stated to be dealing in gold ornaments and coins under proprietorship concern namely M/s Shelaji Asaji & Co. was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) on 27/02/2016 wherein the income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.31.81 Lacs after sole addition of interest for Rs.8.41 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.23.39 Lacs filed by the assessee on 29/09/2013. 2.2 During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee paid interest on loans etc. to certain persons as specified u/s 40A(2)(b) at the rate of 18% as against the rate of 12% paid to other parties. Consequently, invoking the provisions of Section 40A, learned AO disallowed differential interest of 6% which gave rise to addition of Rs.8.41 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. The same, upon confirmation by first appellate authority, is under challenge before us.

Surendra Kumar P.Jain 3. We have heard and considered the arguments raised by respective representatives.

4.

Upon careful consideration, we find that as per the provisions of Section 40A(2)(a), any expenditure would not be allowable as deduction, if the same, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of goods / services for which the payment was made by the assessee. Upon perusal of rate of interest chart as placed before us, it is seen that the assessee has paid interest at the rates ranging between 15% to 18% to unrelated parties whereas it has paid interest of 18% to related parties. Therefore, this being the case, the interest paid to related parties could not be said to be excessive or unreasonable. Nothing has been brought on record by lower authorities to demonstrate that the said rate was excessive or unreasonable, in any manner, having regard to the market rates. Therefore, we delete the impugned additions.

5.

Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th September, 2019.

More judgments on Section 40A(2)(a)

All 266 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →