Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: TDS :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: form 3cd :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: VAT RATES :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: empanelment :: VAT Audit :: articles on VAT and GST in India
From the Courts »
 Group M. Media India Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
 Shreemati Devi vs. CIT (Allahabad High Court)
 Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs

Indian Express Property Ltd. Express Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 Vs. DCIT 3(2) 6 th Floor, Aayakar, Mumbai.
May, 03rd 2014
                            , `'  
                      [^  ,Û  /  Û],  
        Before S/Sh.Vijaypal Rao,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member
         /.ITA No. 2690/M/2011, [ [/ Assessment Year 1997-98
            Indian Express Property Ltd.                  DCIT 3(2)
            Express Towers, Nariman Point,            Vs. 6th Floor, Aayakar,
            Mumbai- 400021                                Mumbai.
            PAN: AAACI2838R
                (/ Appellant)                              (×/ Respondent)
         /.ITA No. 2692/M/2011, [ [/ Assessment Year 2001-02
            Indian Express Property Ltd.                  DCIT 3(2)
            Express Towers, Nariman Point,                6th Floor, Aayakar,
            Mumbai- 400021                            Vs. Mumbai.

            PAN: AAACI2838R
                (/ Appellant)                              (×/ Respondent)
                  / Appellant by                                    : Shri V.Mohan
                ×   /Respondent by                                  : Shri Pitamber Das
                   / Date of Hearing                                : 01-05-2014
                   / Date of Pronouncement                          : 01- 05- 2014
                  , 1961   ( 1 ) 254                     Û[   
                  Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act)
Per Rajendra,A.M:
Challenging the order dated10.01.2011of the CIT(A)-7,Mumbai,assessee-company has filed

appeals for the above referred two Assessment Years(AY.s)raising identical Grounds of Appeal.

Grounds of appeal for the year 1997-98 read as under:

       1.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the

       disallowance of interest of Rs. 9,23,148/-.

       2.Appellant craves leave to amend or alter the existing Ground or add further Ground at the time

       of hearing.

Following are the grounds for the AY.2001-02:

    1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the

    disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,59,99,452/-.

    2. Appellant craves leave to amend or alter the existing Ground or add further Ground at the time

    of hearing.

ITA/2960/M/2011-AY.1997-98:Brief facts and history:

2.Effective Ground of appeal pertains to disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.9,23,148/-.

Assessee-company,had filed its return of income declaring net loss of Rs.30,05,061/-.Assessing

officer(AO)finalised the assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act,on 15.03.2000.During the

assessment proceedings,AO found that the assessee had claimed deduction under the heads

interest expenditure and discounting charges.It was argued before him that rent receivable from

the sub tenants was discounted upfront by the payment of the discounting charges and advancing

interest-free loan to the holding company i.e. Indian Express Newspapers Ltd.(IENL).He disallo-

wed the discounting charges on the basis that interest bearing funds were utilised for the purpose

of advancing interest-freeloans which were totally unconnected with assessee's business,that

expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business,that same

was not allowable either under section 37(1) or under section 36(1 )(iii) of the Act.Against the

order of the AO,assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appeal Authority (FAA).After

considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order,he dismissed the appeal

filed by the assessee

Thereafter the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and vide its order dated

17.08.2004(ITA/4484/M/01)it restored the matter to the file of the FAA.In his order dated 30.08.

2005,he worked out the nexus between interest and non interest bearing funds available with the

assessee that were used for advancing interest-free loans to IENL.He held that an amount of Rs.

10,71,038 was allowable as deduction while Rs.9,23,143/- was required to be disallowed. Cross-

appeals were filed by the assessee and the AO against the order of the Tribunal.In the

consolidated order dated 22.09.2208(ITA No.6444/M/05,ITA/6734/M/05-AY. and ITA/6735/M/

05-AY. 2001 -02)Tribunal held as under:

        9.We have heard both the sides and perused the record of the case.In our opinions the facts have

       to be reexamined in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.

       Builders(supra) wherein it has been held as under:

       "In order to decide whether interest on funds borrowed by the assessee to give an interest free

       loan to a sister concern, should be allowed as a deduction u/s. 36(1)(vii)of the I. T. Act,1961, one

       has to enquire whether the loan was given by the assessee as a measure of commercial

       expediency.The expression "commercial expediency" is one of wide importance and includes

       such expenditure as a prudent businessman it incurs for the purpose of business.The expenditure

       may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as business

       expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency,"

       Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders

       (supra),we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for both the assessment years

       under appeal with the following directions:

                1)      To examine the facts in the light of decision in the case of S.A. Builders (cited

                        supra). While so examining, he will also examine, as rightly submitted by

                        Learned DR., the utilization of funds by borrower also in order to reach correct


                2)      If there is mixed up funds then the disallowance be made proportionately in the

                        ratio of interest bearing to non interest bearing funds."

Thus,the matter stood restored to the file of the AO for framing the assessment order on the basis

of the directions given in this behalf by the ITAT.In the proceedings before the AO assessee

made detailed submissions.After perusing the same,the AO held that interest free loans were

advanced to IENB were not in the ambit of commercial expediency,that the lease agreement

entered by the assessee company with IENB was a business agreement ,that all the commitments

as per the lease agreement were fulfilled by the assessee-company and after having done so it

went on reducing the interest burden of IENB, that interest amount paid over and above the lease

agreement was not allowable,that the entire money borrowed from HDFC was directly provided

to IENB by HDFC,that as per the loan agreement IENB was the borrower and the assessee was

the confirming party,that the amount was not advanced by the assessee company from its own

fund,that issue of non interest bearing fund and interest bearing find had no relevance to decide

the tax liability of the assessee.

2.1.Order of the AO was challenged before the FAA.Deciding the appeal against the assessee,he

held that AO had considered the submissions of the assessee and had also examined the

applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.He agreed with the conclusion with the

observation and conclusion made by the AO,that the AO had given effect to the order of the

ITAT properly.

2.2.Before us,Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that holding company was facing

financial hardship,that loans were advanced to holding company,that there was commercial

expediency in the transaction entered in to by the holding company and the assessee,that AO/FAA

not looked into the commercial expediency aspect,that issue of utilisation of mixed funds in the

ratio of interest bearing to non-interest bearing fund was not considered by both the authorities,

that assessee had 76.03 % non-interest bearing funds with it during the year under appeal, that

interest bearing funds from the HDFC were diverted to the holding company.He referred to page

no.5 and 15 of the paper book.Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the FAA.

2.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that

assessee had acquired certain floors on lease in Express Towers belonging to IENL and gave

them on sub-lease to various tenants,that in the computation of income it disallowed an amount

of Rs.48,77,641/-being interest on the amount borrowed from HDFC under section 43B of the

Act,that the balance interest of Rs.1,28,465 and rent discounting charges of Rs.19,94,186/- was

claimed as deduction.FAA in his order dated 30.08.2005 had worked out the nexus between

interest bearing and non- interest bearing funds available with the assessee that were advanced to

IENL and had held that certain portion of the interest expenditure was allowable.We further find

that ITAT in its order (supra) had specifically directed the AO to look in to the issue of

utilisation of funds and to consider the commercial expediency angle before reaching at final

conclusion.AO was specifically directed to make disallowance proportionately in ratio of interest

bearing to non-interest bearing funds, if assessee had mixed funds.We find that while passing the

order giving effect to the order of the ITAT,AO has observed that issue of disallowance to be

made proportionately had no relevance with regard to commercial expediency.We also find that

the AO had not deliberated upon the financial hardship of the holding company and relevant

material.In the appeal filed by the assessee,before the FAA,it was specifically mentioned that AO

had not adhered to directions of the Tribiunal,that disallowance out of interest payment and

discounting charges was not warranted. Deciding the appeal against the assessee, FAA had held

that he agreed with the observations and conclusions made by the AO in the assessment order.

We find that he has not given any finding on commercial expediency as well as issue of interest

bearing/non-interest bearing funds.Whin specific grounds against the order of the AO were taken

before him, it was the duty of the FAA to pass a speaking order.

2.3.a.It is said reason is the soul of law and when reason of any particular law ceases,so does the

law. In State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw,AIR 1990 SC 2205,the Apex court has held

that that giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice.A right to reason is,

therefore, considered an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review.The principles of

natural justice has twin ingredients ;firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by

the action of the authorities can be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity

of hearing and,secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at

any conclusion showing proper application of mind.Violation of either of them could, in the

given facts and circumstances of the case,vitiate the order itself.In the matter of GEC Alsthom

India Ltd.Hon'ble Madras High Court (361ITR304)has summarised the principles of recording

of reasons as under:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions,

if such decisions affect anyone pre-judicially.

(b)A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c)Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice

must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d)Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of

judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e)Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds

and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f)Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as

observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative


(g)Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h)The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional

governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the

lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i)Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authori

-ties who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate

by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for

sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j)Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial account-ability and transparency.

(k)If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making

process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of

precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(l)Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct.A pretence of reasons or

'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m)It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial

powers.Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less

prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny

(n)Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in

decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights.

(o)In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the

future.Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the

essence and is virtually a part of 'due process'.

In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that an order without reasons is as good as

no order.Order of the FAA,challenged before us,is an order that falls in the category of non

speaking order i.e.the order not mentioning the reasons for arriving at a conclusion.By endorsing

the view of the AO;that the issue of non interest bearing fund and interest bearing find had no

relevance to decide the tax liability of the assessee;FAA has proved that his order contains

rubber stamp reason.Tribunal had specifically given directions in this regard and it was the third

time the same issue was before him.It was expected that he would take notice of the percentage

of availability of funds and decide the issue.But,he simply endorsed the order of the AO,who

according to us has failed to understand the directions of the Tribunal in proper prospective.

As the order of the FAA does not reveal the reasons for upholding the order of the AO, therefore,

in the interest of justice,we are sending back the matter to the file of the FAA for fresh

adjudication, he is directed to pass speaking and reasoned order, following the direction of the

ITAT and decide the issue afresh. He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to

the assessee.

Effective ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee.


3.During the AY.under consideration also assessee had given certain properties on sub-lease to

tenants that were taken on lease from IENL.Return of income was filed declaring loss of Rs.1.88

Crores including interest payment,to HDFC,amounting to Rs.1.59 Crores.AO disallowed the

claim of interest made by the assessee,holding that interest bearing funds were utilised for the

purpose of advancing interest free loans.Rest of the facts are identical to the facts for the

AY.1997-98 mentioned in earlier part of our order.

FAA vide his order dated 10.01.2011,held that following the order for the AY.1997-98 he was

dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee for the year under consideration also.

Following our order for the AY.1997-98,we are restoring the matter to the file of the FAA for

fresh adjudication.Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part.

      As a result,appeals filed by the assessee for both the AYs. stand partly allowed.
      [      [            .

                 Order pronounced in the open court on 1st,May,2014.
                    Û   1 ,2014    
             Sd/-                                                    Sd/-
        (  / VIJAY PAL RAO)                                    (Û] /RAJENDRA)
      Û /JUDICIAL MEMBER                                /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
      /Mumbai,/Date: .01.05.2014
        /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
    1. Assessee /                                         2. Respondent /×
    3. The concerned CIT (A) /   , 4.The concerned CIT /  
    5. DR "I" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /   ,..Û. 
    6. Guard File/[ 
                                            ×  //True Copy//

                                                       / BY ORDER,
                                                /  Dy./Asst. Registrar
                                               ,   /ITAT, Mumbai

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Outsourcing Test Solutions Software Testing Software Bug Testing Software Issues Tracking Software Issue Fix Software Code Optimization Database Design Optimization

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions