CIT v KAJAL EXPORTS [Tax Appeal No. 756 of 2013 dated 23.01.2014] (Gujarat High Court) Background: Assessee is engaged in business of export activities. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had made borrowings throughout the year under the banner of business necessity and on review of the purchases and the sales patterns of the assessee, held that the funds borrowed were utilised for purposes other than business. The AO further noted that the assessee had advanced money to close relatives/ sister concerns without charging the interest. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the interest expenditure. CIT(Appeals) concluded that the borrowed funds were not used for the business purposes in the AY 2003-04 and the AO was justified in disallowing the expenditure on such borrowed funds to the extent it is claimed in the P&L account. The Tribunal deleted the entire amount except Rs.21,900/-, i.e. 15% of Rs.1.46 lakhs.
Business expenditure/income
CIT v Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd [2013] 40 taxmann.com 494 (Gujarat) Background: Assessee is engaged in the business of trading in finished fabrics. For the assessment year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer held that the purchases worth Rs. 40,69,546 were unexplained. Assessing Officer had issued notice to all parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made. Such notices were returned unserved by the postal authorities with the remark that the address was incomplete. He, therefore, disallowed such expenditure claimed by the assessee and computed the total income of Rs. 41,10,187. The Commissioner rejected the appeal, upon which the assessee went in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, substantially allowed the assessee’s appeal.
If it is proved that goods are actually purchased (even though the parties are bogus), ...
CIT v Bhargav Book Depot [2013] 40 taxmann.com 213 (Allahabad) Background: Assessee deals in printing and publication of books/diaries and sale thereof. During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO found that the assessee had sold Bhargav Dictionary though its sister concern “Sri Ganga Pustkalay” and had offered a discount of 3% whereas it had offered a discount of 0.5% less to other whole sellers . The AO further found that the sale price of dictionary was lesser by 18% when it was sold to M/s Sri Ganga Pustakalay. The difference of half percent was disallowed under Section 40-A (2) (a) and (b) of the Act and addition of Rs.15,97,401 was also made under Section 40-A (2) (a) and (b) of the Act. The matter was carried in appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has accepted the claim of the assessee and deleted the addition, which order has been upheld by the Tribunal on an appeal preferred by the Revenue.
Higher discount rate offered to sister concern not subject to disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) – All ...
The CBDT has issued Circular (No: 10/DV/2013) dated 16/12/2013 providing ‘Departmental View‘ on the controversial issue surrounding section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports v Addln CIT /[2012] 136 ITD 23 (VISAKHAPATNAM), it was held that: “The word ‘payable’ used in section 40(a)( ia) is to be assigned strict interpretation, in view of the object of Legislation, which is intended from the replacement of the words in the proposed and enacted provision from the words ‘amount credited or paid’ to ‘payable’. Hence, it has to be concluded that provisions of section 40(a )(ia) are applicable only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on the date 31st March of every year and it cannot be invoked to disallow expenditure which has been actually paid during the previous year, without deduction of TDS.”
S. 40(a)(ia) – CBDT issues circular providing “Departmental View” contradicting Merylin Shipping ruling
CIT v Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd [Tax Appeal No. 126 of 2013 dated 25/06/2013] Gujarat High Court 14A Disallowance Background: The assessee earned dividend income from certain investments. The Assessing Officer stated that the onus was not discharged by the assessee to establish that the investment from where dividend has been received was out of its own funds and no borrowed funds have been utilised for making such investment on the basis of cash/fund flows statement. The AO on an estimated basis deducted 10% of the total dividend income as expenditure including the interest in relation to earning of exempt income and the sum of Rs.1,14,43,040/- was disallowed as per the provision of Section 14A of the Act.
No 14A disallowance of interest exp where owned funds exceed amount of investments & other ...
M/s GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD v Addln CIT ITA No.3198/Mum/2011; ITA No.5213/Mum/2010 dtd 26.06.2013 – Mum ITAT Background: Assessee has given interest-free advances to various sister concerns or other concerns totalling to Rs.2,68,61,882. Assessee during the course of assessment proceedings these advances are for business expediency or given out of its own funds. The AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee and observed that no explanation has been given in respect of Luster Print Media Limited and Dalmia Fresenius Limited. The AO considered these interest free loans as given for the purpose other than business. In respect of other parties also the A.O. noticed that the assessee has not given satisfactory reply in respect of interest free advances / loans. Therefore, he disallowed at the rate of 20% on the interest-free loans.
Where interest-free advances are made out of owned funds, no disallowance of interest can be ...
ITO(TDS) v Jet Airways (India) Ltd. [IT APPEAL NOS. 7439, 7440 & 7441 (MUM) OF 2010] dtd 26.06.13 Mumbai ITAT Background: The assessee is a company engaged in the business of aviation. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out. After survey, proceedings were initialed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act in connection with the applicability of TDS on amounts retained by the banks in respect of air tickets booked through credit cards. Assessee during the course of proceedings stated that provisions of section 194H of the Act are not applicable on the above mentioned amounts retained by the banks as the amounts retained by the banks is in the nature of discounting in consideration of immediate payment made by the banks to the assessee.
No TDS u/s 194H on credit card charges paid to banks – Mum ITAT
CIT v M/s Mahanagar Gas Limited [Income Tax Appeal No. 1978 of 2011] Dated : June 10, 2013 – Bombay High Court Background: Assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2004-05 declaring a total income of Rs.100.76 crores. The Assessing officer noticed that the assessee had borrowed a sum of Rs.30 crores during the year and had paid total interest of Rs.613.26 lacs on the same. During the year, the assessee had invested an amount of Rs.4147 lacs in mutual funds. The Assessing Officer held that the borrowed funds were utilised for the purpose of investment in mutual funds and disallowed expenditure on account of interest under Section 36(1) (iii) on the ground that the above interest was not attributable to business carried on by the assessee.
Interest can’t be disallowed if investment is made from mixed funds (presuming sufficient own funds) ...
CIT v Jaimal Ram Kasturi [D.B. IT APPEAL NO.145 of 2006] – Rajasthan High Court Background: The assessee is engaged in liquor business and during the period relevant to assessment year 1991-1992, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.4,15,32,865/- as against the declared profit of Rs.3,87,66,937/- by adopting a net profit rate of 20.5% as against the declared rate of 19.13% after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee, under Section 145 of the Act. The AO held that the profit of the country liquor business of the assessee had to be determined in comparison with other analogous assessee engaged in the same line of business because considering the stiff competition for acquiring monopoly rights, it could be reasonably presumed that the assessees were likely to have profit comparable with each other. The AO compared the case of the assessee with a contractor of the adjoining area, M/s Malu Khan & Party, Bikaner, who had shown the net profit at 22.70% for the period in question; and assessed the assessee by taking 20.5% net profit instead of 19.13% as declared by him.