High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd.
Section : 36(1)(iii)
A.K. Sikri And M.L. Mehta, JJ.
IT Appeal Nos. 43 Of 2009 And 505 & 562 Of 2010
August 18, 2011
JUDGMENT
1. The respondent-assessee had borrowed certain funds which were utilized by the assessee to subscribe to the equity capital of the subsidiary company, namely, M/s. Tulip Star Hospitality Services Ltd. This subsidiary company used the said funds for the purpose of acquiring the Centaur Hotel, Juhu Beach, Mumbai, wfhich is now functioning as “The Tulip Star, Mumbai”. The assessee paid interest on the borrowed money. This interest liability incurred by the assessee was claimed by it as deduction on the ground that it was business expenditure. The Assessing Officer (AO) refused to allow this expenditure. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer and the opinion of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has been confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by the impugned orders which relate to different assessment years. Challenging the said orders, these appeals are preferred.
2. A perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal would reveal that it is noted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the assessee is in the business of owning, running and managing hotels. For the effective control of new hotels acquired by the assessee under its management it had invested in a wholly owned subsidiary, namely, M/s. Tulip Star Hospitality Services Ltd. On this ground, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 / 158 Taxman 74 the Tribunal has held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of interest on the borrowed funds. The observations made by the Supreme Court in S. A. Builders Ltd.’s case (supra) were quoted by the Tribunal as under (page 10) :
“. . . where it is obvious that a holding company has a deep interest in its subsidiary, and hence if the holding company advances borrowed money to a subsidiary and the same is used by the subsidiary for some business purposes, the assessee would, in our opinion, ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans.”
3. In these circumstances holding it to be expenditure incurred for business the same was allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also held that this expenditure would be allowed even under section 57(iii) of the Act. Though there may be some controversy as to whether the aforesaid expenditure is allowable under section 57(iii) of the Act or not, we have no doubt, in our mind, that the expenditure incurred under the aforesaid circumstances would be treated as expenditure incurred for business purposes and was thus allowable under section 36 of the Act. Mr. O. S. Bajpai, learned senior advocate appearing for the assessee, has produced a copy of the memorandum of association of the assessee which, inter alia, specifies the following objects :
“To own, purchase, construct, acquire, equip, operate, manage, conduct or in any other manner and in all its aspects deal in hotels, motels, resorts, inns, guest houses, apartments, food courts, shopping plazas, commercial complexes, casinos, entertainment parks, water parks, amusement centres, gaming centres, bowling alleys, wild life parks, restaurants, cafes, refreshment rooms, lodging houses of every kind and sort including all the conveniences, amenities and facilities adjunct thereto, in India or in any other part of the world and to act as consultants, advisors, experts, technical collaborators, valuers, surveyors, inventory analysts in all matters, pertaining to setting up of hotels, resorts, all form of lodging, touristic and leisure projects.”
4. We are, thus, of the opinion that no question of law arises. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.
[Citation : 338 ITR 482]
