Vodafone India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that once it is established that the funds are used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business interest paid on such borrowed funds is allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
Facts- Assessee contested disallowance of interest on loans advanced to the subsidiaries by the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee and its subsidiaries are engaged in the business of providing mobile telecom services PAN India. There is significant inter-dependance between the assessee and its group companies for providing cellular services in different telecom circles. Therefore, loan advanced by the assessee to its group concerns were driven by commercial expediency.
Further, the assessee has assailed disallowance of interest Rs.1,63,96,415/- on Capital Work-in-Progress and disallowance of interest Rs.38,70,010/- on ECB. It is submitted that the assessee has acquired fixed assets from the borrowed capital during the year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. The assets were acquired not for the purpose of extension of its existing business but to provide better quality of services to the customers. AO while disallowing interest on capital work-in-progress and interest on ECB has erred in holding that the assessee has extended its existing business, by making substantial addition to the fixed asset base of the company. AO on wrong appreciation of facts has erred in coming to the conclusion that interest paid on capital borrowed is for acquisition of assets for extension of business, hence, not allowable as deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
Further, assessee also contested disallowance of expenditure on raising of loans.
Conclusion- The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.A Builders Ltd. vs. CIT(Supra) has held that once it is established that interest free loans has been advanced to sister concerns on account of commercial expediency, the interest paid on such loans by assessee cannot be disallowed. In so far as the objection of Revenue regarding advancement of loans to a loss making group concern, we hold that it is the assessee who has the exclusive right to take a call regarding advancing of loans to the group concern, the Assessing Officer cannot sit in the arm chair of the assessee and decide to whom loan is to be extended or at what rate of interest loan is to be extended. Once the assessee has been able to establish commercial expediency for extending the loan, which in our considered view the assessee has been successful in the present case, the interest expenditure cannot be disallowed.
Held that the borrowed funds have been utilized for the purpose of business. Once it is established that the funds are used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business interest paid on such borrowed funds is allowed u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In the case of ECBs, it is not the case of Revenue that ECB loan was diverted for non-business purpose. The assessee has received ECB loans on 10/03/2006, the funds were available with the assessee, even if, ECB loan was not utilized, interest paid thereon would be allowable.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) has held that expenditure on raising of loan is revenue in nature, hence, allowable. The nature of expenditure on raising of loan does not depend upon nature and purpose of loan. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the expenditure incurred for raising of the loan is allowable u/s.37(1) of the Act. The ground No.8 of the appeal is thus, allowed.
