9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 111 - AT - Income TaxNetting of interest income - whether or not income paid on interest against the fixed deposits can be said to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income from fixed deposits? - assessee made fixed deposit with various banks and at the same time, the assessee availed loan from State Bank of India and claimed the interest to be set off against the interest received from various banks from fixed deposits - HELD THAT - The assessee s payment of interest has no nexus between the earning of income. Facts in the present case is similar to that of the one considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. V.P.Gopinathan 2001 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT in which it has been held that interest on loan taken by the assessee from the bank on secured fixed deposit could not be reduced from his income by way of interest on the fixed deposit placed by him in the bank. As decided in M/S HARYANA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES EXPORT CORPORATION L 2012 (8) TMI 1178 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT there is nothing to show that the expenses claimed as deduction were incurred for earning interest income. Equally, the claim of the appellant that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was allowable under Sections 30 to 37 of the Act is inadmissible for the reason that the business of the assessee was lying closed and income from interest was chargeable to tax as 'income from other sources' under Section 56 of the Act. Once that was so, the Tribunal had rightly adjudicated the matter in favour of the revenue. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals 2. Netting of Interest Income 3. Confirmation of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C 4. Excessive Disallowance by CIT(A) Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals: The appeals were delayed by 67 days. The assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay and attributed no latches to the assessee. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeals were considered on their merits. 2. Netting of Interest Income: The primary issue was whether the interest paid on loans taken against fixed deposits could be netted off against the interest earned from those fixed deposits. The assessee argued that the interest payment was incurred wholly and exclusively for earning the interest income, relying on the Agra Bench decision in Raj Kumar Agarwal v. DCIT. The tribunal examined various judicial precedents: - Raj Kumar Agarwal v. DCIT: Held that interest on loans against fixed deposits could be considered as incurred wholly and exclusively for earning interest income. - Shri M.J.Aravind v. JCIT: Contrarily, it was held that expenses claimed under Section 57(iii) must be directly related to earning income from other sources. - Haryana State Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. v. CIT: Emphasized the necessity of a direct nexus between the expenditure and the income earned for it to be deductible under Section 57(iii). The tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. V.P.Gopinathan, which held that interest on loans taken against fixed deposits could not be reduced from the interest earned on those fixed deposits. Based on these precedents, the tribunal concluded that the assessee's payment of interest did not have a sufficient nexus with the earning of interest income. Therefore, the claim for netting off the interest was denied. 3. Confirmation of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The assessee contested the confirmation of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. However, the tribunal did not find any merit in this contention and upheld the interest levied under these sections. 4. Excessive Disallowance by CIT(A): The assessee claimed that the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) was arbitrary and excessive. The tribunal, after considering the facts and precedents, did not find any infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities and upheld the disallowance. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. The tribunal found no merit in the arguments for netting of interest income and upheld the interest levied under Sections 234B and 234C. The disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) was also upheld as not being excessive or arbitrary.
|
