2021 (8) TMI 424 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D or 37(1) - before the AO, it was submitted that this amount pertains to the interest cost utilized for granting ICDs to group companies and the interest earned thereof has been duly offered to tax as the business income - AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that the company failed to prove that the interest bearing fund was granted as loan to the group companies - HELD THAT - The expenditure must be directly and intimately connected with business laid out by the assessee in his capacity as a trader. To be a permissible deduction, there must be a direct and intimate connection between the expenditure and the business. Ordinarily it is for the assessee to decide whether a certain expenditure should be incurred during the course of his business and if such expenditure has been incurred for promoting the assessee's business and earning profits, the assessee can claim a deduction of the expense under section 37(1) of the Act. Respectfully following the ratio of decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. 1982 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT thus hold that the interest expense has been incurred by appellant in respect of earning taxable income. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of expenses under sections 37(1) and 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Failure to prove interest bearing funds were granted as loans to subsidiaries/group companies.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 37(1) and 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant, a Non-Banking Finance Company, had incurred significant expenses, out of which certain amounts were disallowed by the AO. The AO held that the company failed to prove that interest-bearing funds were granted as loans to subsidiaries/group companies.

2. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition made by the AO, stating that the interest expense had been incurred for earning taxable income. The appellant provided a detailed breakdown of interest costs incurred, highlighting that interest paid on loans for specific purposes should not be considered for disallowance under section 14A of the Act.

3. The appellant had issued Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) and utilized the proceeds for various purposes, including granting inter-corporate deposits (ICDs) to subsidiaries. The appellant argued that there was a direct correlation between the funds received from CCDs and the utilization for interest-bearing ICDs to subsidiaries, supported by financial statements and auditor certifications.

4. The ld. CIT (A) relied on legal precedents emphasizing that expenses must be necessitated by commercial expediency and directly connected to the business. Citing the decision of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd., it was held that the interest expense incurred by the appellant was for earning taxable income, justifying its deduction under section 37(1) of the Act.

5. Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT (A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal found the AO's disallowance of interest expenses to be unjustified based on the detailed analysis and reasoning provided by the ld. CIT (A).

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant, highlighting the importance of establishing a direct correlation between expenses incurred and income generation. The decision emphasized the commercial expediency and business necessity criteria for allowing deductions under the Income Tax Act, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and dismissing the revenue's appeal.