RUSTOMJEE KNOWLEDGE CITY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

ITA. No.3317/M/16 A.Y.2010-11

The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai has erred by disallowing part of interest paid though the interest paid was for business purposes only, Without prejudice to the above the interest paid may be allowed u/s. 37(1) of the Act, the interest paid being tor business purposes and that the security deposit application money given for the business of the Appellant Company. The Appellant reserves right to add, amend and alter any grounds of appeal as and when kindly necessary.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2010-11 on 13.10.2010 declaring total loss to the tune of Rs.86,72,351/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny hence notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 25.08.2011 was issued and served upon the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 19.10.2012 was also issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee company is engaged in the business of construction of building, land and estate development, leasing and/ or sale of the premises and activities incidental to it. The assessee also engaged in the pre-primary education running of vocational training and education classes. On verification, it was found that the assessee paid the interest free loan to the tune of Rs.1,07,55,000/- to Terrafirma Realty Pvt. Ltd. and on the other hand claiming the interest on borrowing. Notice u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act was issued and after getting the reply, 15% interest upon the said income i.e. to the tune of Rs.16,13,250/- was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The claim of the assessee was also disallowed u/s 40A of the Act to the tune of Rs.51,330/- and the total income of the assessee was assessed as loss to the tune of Rs.70,07,771/-. Feeling aggrieved, The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the said finding

ITA. No.3317/M/16 A.Y.2010-11 of the AO in connection with disallowance of interest of Rs.16,13,250/-, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

ITA. No.3317/M/16 A.Y.2010-11 the license to raise venture capital so fund could be used in acquiring properties and to pay the security deposit which was in the interest of the business of the appellant. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has also contended that the investment was in the interest of business of the assessee, therefore, the interest is not liable to be added into the income of the assessee in view of the law settled in S. A. Builders Ltd. CIT 228 ITR 01 (SC). No doubt, the said investment by the assessee is in connection with the buying of equity-shares of Terrafirma Realty Pvt. Ltd and for furnishing the security to the tune of Rs.77,50,000/- towards the Venture Capital Financing. The assessee purchased the share to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- equity-shares. No doubt, the said expenses are not related to the business of the assessee but the said investment seems to be business expediency in which the assessee wanted to secure the present business as well as in the business of Venture Capital Financing related to Terrafirma Realty Pvt. Ltd. The certificate issued by SEBI Security and Exchange Board of India dated 29.03.2007 related to Terrafirma Realty Pvt. Ltd fund is on the file which lies at page no. 1 of the paper book. The claim of the assessee firm was in connection with Ashray Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. earlier name of the firm M/s. Rustomejee Knowledge City Pvt. Ltd. The ledger account of the assessee firm is on the file which lies at page no. 2 of the paper book in which the assessee paid the amount to M/s.Terrafirma Advisors Realty Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of security deposit towards the Venture Capital License if any. No interest was received. The details of share-holding of Terrafirma Realty Advisors Pvt. Ltd. is on also on the file which lies at page no. 3 of the paper book. The assessee can take the decision on account of his business expediency. The case of the assessee

ITA. No.3317/M/16 A.Y.2010-11 seems to squarely covered by decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A Builders (supra), therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable hence we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on the issue and decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue and delete the said addition of the interest to the tune of Rs.16,13,250/-.