9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 435 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of deduction u/s 57(iii) - Interest on Loan - income under the head income from other sources which was on account of interest from saving bank account and FDR - HELD THAT - In the present case, the interest paid on the loans raised against the FDR was having the direct nexus with the interest received from the FDRs and the assessee choose to save the penalty of 1.5% by raising the loans at 1% higher rate of interest than the interest rate on FDR thus there were saving of 0.5%. As regards to the decisions relied by the A.O. and considered by the Ld. CIT(A) i.e; CIT Vs. Dr. V.P. Gopinathan 2001 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT it is noticed that the same is distinguishable from the facts of the assessee s case, since the issue in the said case was not relating to the applicability of section 57(iii) of the Act rather in the said case the loan was raised from different bank on which interest was paid while the interest was earned on the FDR with the different bank, so there was no nexus. We therefore by considering the facts of the present case as discussed herein above, are of the view that the disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified, accordingly, the same is deleted. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved
1. Disallowance of deduction under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Interpretation and application of judicial precedents relevant to section 57(iii). Detailed Analysis Disallowance of Deduction under Section 57(iii) The primary issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had claimed a deduction of ?28,93,281/- on account of interest paid on a loan raised against Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs). The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed this deduction, asserting that the interest paid on loans raised against FDRs for giving money to the assessee's son could not be considered as an expenditure incurred "wholly and exclusively" for the purpose of making or earning such income as prescribed under section 57(iii). The assessee argued that the loan was taken to avoid premature encashment of the FDRs, which would have resulted in a net loss due to penalties. The assessee contended that the interest paid on the loan was incurred to preserve the income-earning apparatus (the FDRs), thereby justifying the deduction under section 57(iii). Interpretation and Application of Judicial Precedents The assessee relied on several judicial precedents to support their claim, including the decision of the ITAT Agra in the case of Raj Kumari Agarwal and the Supreme Court's decision in Sasoon J. David & Co. The assessee argued that these precedents supported the view that expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income should be deductible, even if they were not necessarily incurred for earning that income. The A.O. and the CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Dr. V.P. Gopinathan, which held that interest paid on a loan taken from the same bank where the FDR was held did not reduce the income from the FDR. However, the assessee contended that this case was distinguishable because it did not involve a claim under section 57(iii) and did not consider the necessity of the loan to avoid penalties from premature encashment of FDRs. Tribunal's Findings The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and the material on record. It noted that the assessee had old FDRs earning interest at 9.15% and had raised loans against these FDRs, paying 1% extra interest. The Tribunal observed that by not encashing the FDRs prematurely and raising loans against them, the assessee saved a penalty of 1.5% and thus preserved the income-earning apparatus. The Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from the Dr. V.P. Gopinathan case, noting that in the present case, the loan was raised against the same FDRs, and the interest paid had a direct nexus with the interest earned from the FDRs. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance made by the A.O. and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified, as the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the interest income from the FDRs. Conclusion The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the interest paid on the loan raised against the FDRs was deductible under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that the expenditure was incurred to preserve the income-earning apparatus and had a direct nexus with the interest earned from the FDRs. The decision of the CIT(A) was thus overturned, and the disallowance was deleted.
|
