GANESH BHASKARRAO MANEDESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had sufficient own funds, a portion of the interest-free loans were advanced from borrowed funds, as admitted by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance of interest was restricted to the admitted amount.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a civil contractor, declared a total income of Rs. 62,58,035/-. The Assessing Officer made disallowances under Section 14A and proportionate disallowance of interest on interest-free loans and advances.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of interest on interest-free loans and advances is justified when the assessee has sufficient own funds, and to what extent.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.2,118 citing178 Taxmann 135 · 2009 · HC
- Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT361 citing379 ITR 347 · 2015 · SC · Read judgment
- Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT191 citing215 CTR 105 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आदेश / ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Pune dated 25-02-2016 for the assessment year 2010-11.
2 ITA No.928/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2010-11
The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is a Civil Contractor engaged mainly in construction of dams, canals, etc. The assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 15-10-2010 declaring total income of Rs.62,58,035/-. There was mismatch of TDS credit, therefore, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was issued to the assessee on 26-08-2011. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act Rs.1,19,332/- and made proportionate disallowance of interest Rs.5,96,369/- on interest free Loans and Advances to various persons.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 04-03-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the contentions of assessee and confirmed the addition/disallowance on both the above counts. Now, the assessee is in appeal assailing the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Shri Pawan V. Auti appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that he is not pressing ground Nos. 3 to 7 in respect of disallowances made u/s. 14A of the Act. In respect of ground Nos. 1 and 2 relating to disallowance of interest Rs.5,96,369/- the ld. AR submitted that the disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer on the pretext that the assessee has advanced interest bearing funds to various persons without charging interest. The ld. AR submitted that a perusal of the Balance sheet at page 10 of the paper book would show that own interest free funds of the assessee are much more than the loans and advances made. The ld. AR pointed that the assessee has capital to the tune of
3 ITA No.928/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2010-11
Rs.2,10,70,705/- and interest free unsecured loans of Rs.38 lakhs, as against interest free loans and advances of Rs.80,59,781/-. The ld. AR contended that where own interest free funds are more than the loans and advances no disallowance of interest is to be made. In support of his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Munjal Sales Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 215 CTR 105 (SC); ii. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 379 ITR 347 (SC); iii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd., 178 Taxman 135 (Bombay).
On the other hand Shri Achal Sharma representing the Department vehemently defended the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the addition. The ld. DR submitted that a perusal of assessment order clearly reveal that the disallowance of interest has been made by Assessing Officer on the basis of admission made by the assessee. The assessee had furnished the working of proportionate disallowance of interest before the Assessing Officer and on the basis of that working alone the Assessing Officer had made disallowance of Rs.5,96,369/-.
Controverting the submissions made by the DR, the ld. AR submitted that before the Assessing Officer the assessee had furnished written submissions giving the working of interest calculation on loans and advances and has also given the working of interest disallowance to be made with respect to loans and advances. Admittedly, as per the working furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer the assessee had admitted that disallowance to the extent of Rs.1,13,608/- is to be made. The interest in respect of total loans and advances @ 14% per annum was
4 ITA No.928/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2010-11
computed at Rs.5,96,369/-. The Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the total interest instead of disallowance of interest in respect of advances made from borrowed funds. The ld. AR fairly admitted that disallowance to the extent of Rs.1,13,608/- could be made. The ld. AR furnished the copy of submissions made before Assessing Officer.
We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the documents on which the ld. AR has placed reliance. The assessee in appeal has raised two issues. The ground Nos. 1 and 2 are in respect of disallowance of interest Rs.5,96,369/-. The ground Nos. 1 to 7 are qua disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
In so far as disallowance of interest is concerned the contention of the assessee is that the assessee has advanced loans to the tune of Rs.8,059,781/-. The assessee has sufficient own funds and interest free funds to cover the interest free loans and advances. We find that in assessment proceedings the assessee has admitted that the interest bearing funds were also used for advancing of interest free loans. The assessee computed interest on such interest bearing funds at Rs.1,13,608/-. The ld. AR of the assessee has again admitted this fact before us. Thus, in view of the assessee’s own admission we are of considered view that disallowance of interest should be restricted to Rs.1,13,608/-.
A perusal of the Balance sheet at page 10 of the paper book clearly indicates that the assessee has sufficient own funds to cover the loans and advances. However, in view of assessee’s own admission, we restrict disallowance to Rs.1,13,608/-. Accordingly, the ground Nos. 1 and 2
5 ITA No.928/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2010-11
raised in the appeal by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms aforesaid.
The ground Nos. 3 to 7 raised in the appeal are in respect of disallowance made u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The ld. AR of the assessee stated at the Bar that he is not pressing this issue. Accordingly, ground Nos. 3 to 7 raised in appeal by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid.
Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 23rd day of May, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/- (डी. करुणाकरा राव/D. Karunakara Rao) (ववकास अवस्थी / Vikas Awasthy) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 23rd May, 2018 RK आदेश की प्रयिलऱवऩ अग्रेवषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. आयकर आयुक्त (अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-1, Pune 3. 4. The Pr. C.I.T.-2, Pune ववभागीय प्रयतयनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाडड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6. //सत्यावऩत प्रयत // True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
यनजी सधचव / Private Secretary, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026