IL & FS WATER LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 10(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1250/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 October 2018AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the disallowance of interest was not warranted as the comparison to bank rates was incorrect and the interest rate was not excessive. However, the disallowance of air ticket and boarding expenses was sustained due to the assessee's failure to provide proper evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee debited interest on a loan from its holding company at 17% p.a. The AO restricted this to 12% under Section 40A(2)(b) and disallowed the difference. The assessee also claimed air ticket and boarding expenses, of which 10% was disallowed due to lack of documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the interest paid to the holding company was excessive and if the disallowance of air ticket and boarding expenses was justified due to lack of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ (SMC

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE

Hearing: 15.10.2018

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

In this appeal filed by the assessee which is directed an order dated 06.12.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, it has raised two issues through its grounds 1 to 3.

2.

First issue is on a disallowance of Rs.15,01,906/- made by the AO u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) and the second issue is on a disallowance of Rs.7,97,442/- on air ticket and boarding expenses.

3.

Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee engaged in the business of Water Management and Consultancy and filed its return for the impugned AY declaring total income of Rs.1,14,720/-. As per the Ld.AR, the assessee was a subsidiary of one M/s.IL & FS Ltd. Submission of the Ld.AR was that the assessee had debited interest of Rs.51,06,479/- on a secured term loan of Rs.6.00 Crs. taken from its holding company. As per the Ld.AR, rate at which interest was paid was @17% p.a. Submission of the Ld.AR was that the AO restricted the interest to @12% and made a disallowance of the difference coming to Rs.15,01,906/-. As per the Ld.AR, the AO had relied on Sec.40A(2)(b) of the Act for making such disallowance.

Further, as per Ld.AR, such disallowance was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A).

Contention of the Ld.AR is that Sec.40A(2)(b) of the Act was not applicable since M/s.IL & FS Water Ltd., was the holding company. Further, as per the Ld.AR, even otherwise, the interest paid @17% was not excessive. As per the Ld.AR, the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) had considered bank rate of 12% as reasonable without referring to any document, and without citing any reason why they considered bank rate for comparison. Thus, according to him, the disallowance made was unfair.

4.

Per Contra, Ld.DR submitted that Sec.40A(2)(b) of the Act was clearly applicable. According to him, there was no reason why assessee paid excessive interest to its holding company on loans raised from them.

5.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below carefully. Lower authorities had considered @12% to be a reasonable rate for payment of interest. The Ld.AO states in his order that @12% p.a. was reasonable, based on market rates. As against this, the Ld.CIT(A) says that rate of 12% was what was charged by the banks. In my opinion, the comparison attempted by the lower authorities was incorrect.

Loans from private parties will always have higher rate of interest than loans from banks, since formalities and procedures to be followed while applying for a loan from bank, is much more cumbersome than loan from private parties.

It is a principle of economics that risk and returns go together. In my opinion, rate of interest @17% paid by the assessee on the loans raised by it from its holding company could not have been considered excessive unless similar comparable cases were identified by the Ld.AO. The disallowance was not warranted. Such disallowance stands deleted.

6.

Second issue raised by the assessee is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.7,97,442/- being air ticket and boarding expenses. Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings had noted that assessee had debited Rs.54,33,218/- as air ticket charges and Rs.25,41,196/- as boarding expenses in his P&L A/c. It seems despite request from the Ld.AO, the assessee did not provide any documentary evidence for justifying the claim, except for furnishing a copy of the ledger account. The AO considering the possibility of personal expenditure being imbedded in this claim disallowed 10%. Appeal of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) did not meet with any success.

7.

Now before us, Ld.AR submitted that the full details of the claim was filed before the Ld.CIT(A). According to him, employees were required to undertake tours in discharge of their official duties and the assessee was having supporting vouchers.

8.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below carefully. The AO has disallowed @10% of the claim of air fare and boarding expenses, considering the failure of the assessee to produce vouchers in support of the claim. Except for filing a ledger copy, assessee had not filed any evidence before the AO. No doubt, Ld.CIT(A) has taken note of the vouchers which were filed before him along with extract of the statement but did not find it to be satisfactory. In my opinion, assessee was not able to justify its claim with proper evidence. Lower authorities could not be faulted for making a disallowance @10% of such claim. I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities on this issue.

Accordingly, such disallowance is sustained.

9.

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

Order pronounced on the 15th day of October, 2018, in Chennai.

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

All 1,172 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →