SHASHIKANT DAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 4(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2510/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 October 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the disallowance made by the AO was higher than the actual interest claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance to the amount of interest claimed.

What were the facts?

The AO disallowed interest expenses claimed by the assessee on the grounds that the assessee had also provided interest-free loans to others. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. The assessee argued that the disallowance was excessive.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of interest expenses can exceed the amount of interest claimed by the assessee, even if interest-free loans were provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, E Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Hearing: 30.10.2017Pronounced: 31.10.2017

Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dated 28.02.2014 for A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though hearing has been fixed from time to time on the request of the assessee. We, therefore, decided to dispose off this appeal after hearing the learned D.R.

3.

We noted that the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the Ld AO on account of legitimate interest made on funds borrowed and used for the purposes of business of Rs. 9,79,232/- without appreciating that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.516,368/- only in Profit fit Loss A/c on account of claim of interest by doing so the Ld AO has sought to tax deemed interest income which is wrong and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.”

Shri Shashikant Damani 4. After hearing the learned D.R. and going through the orders of Tax Authorities below we noted that the AO while framing the assessment found that the assessee has claimed an amount or `5,16,318/- as interest on secured loans taken by him. The AO further noted that the assessee had given interest free loans to the tune of `92,03,307/-. Therefore the AO computed interest @10.64% on `92,03,307/- which comes to `9,79,232/- and disallowed the same while computing the income under the head “Income from Business”. When the matter went to the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

5.

We noted that the assessee had paid interest of `5,16,368/- to HDFC Bank on loan availed by him of an `48,53,950/-. Thus the assessee has paid a total interest `5,39,543/- which the assessee had debited to the Profit & Loss Account on a loan of `48,53,950/-. The assessee has also claimed deduction for a sum of `5,39,543/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act but the AO noted that the assessee has also debited the said interest in its Profit & Loss Account and claimed the same as deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) but the AO after noting that the assessee has given interest free loan for a sum of `93,60,865/- and computed interest thereon and thus calculated the disallowance at `9,79,232/- instead of restricting it to `5,16,368/-. If the assessee has claimed deduction of `5,16,368/- under Section 36(i)(iii) the disallowance made thereon, even if it is assumed that assessee has utilised borrowed money for advancing interest free loan, cannot be more than `5,18,368/-. We accordingly reduce the disallowance of `9,79,232/- to `5,16,368/-. Thus the ground taken by the assessee is partly allowed.

6.

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

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →