KS HOLDINGS PRIVATE LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 65/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 December 2018AY 2014-154 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 interest paid on borrowed funds for business purposes should be allowed as a deduction, irrespective of whether income was earned from the investment. The disallowance by the lower authorities was not upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an investment company, borrowed funds to invest in its foreign subsidiary. The subsidiary did not declare or distribute any dividends. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest paid on borrowed funds, stating no income was earned.

What were the issues?

Whether interest paid on borrowed funds for investment in a subsidiary is allowable as a business expenditure when no dividend income is received.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BBD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Appellant: CA यथ क ओरसे /
Hearing: 10.12.2018Pronounced: 12.12.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Chennai, dated 25.10.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Sh. Ajith Kumar Choradia, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the only issue arises for consideration is disallowance of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds.

Referring to the assessment order, the Ld. representative submitted that the Assessing Officer found that Section 115BBD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') is not applicable to the facts of the case. However, she disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that there was no income earned by the assessee.

According to the Ld. representative, admittedly, the assessee is an investment company and the borrowed funds were invested in the subsidiary company outside the country on Mauritius. It is also an admitted fact that no dividend was distributed or received, therefore, according to the Ld. representative, the expenditure has to be allowed while computing the taxable income.

3.

On the contrary, Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that since no income was earned by the assessee on the investment, the interest paid by the assessee on the borrowed funds cannot be allowed.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee is an investment company. The assessee borrowed funds to invest in a subsidiary company outside the country at Mauritius. It is also not in dispute that the assessee’s subsidiary company at Mauritius has not declared any dividend or distributed any dividend. In those factual circumstances, the Assessing Officer found that since no income was earned by the assessee, the interest payment cannot be allowed. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee incurred expenditure, irrespective of the fact whether the assessee earned income or not, so long as the expenditure is for business purpose, it is to be allowed.

5.

It is not the case of the Revenue that the interest payment is not for business. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the interest payment only on the ground that no dividend income was received from subsidiary company at Mauritius. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that irrespective of the fact whether the assessee received dividend income from the subsidiary company at Mauritius or not, the payment of interest has to be allowed as business expenditure. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the orders of the authorities below. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the interest payment on the borrowed funds.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 115BBD

All 39 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →