2017 (11) TMI 2068 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest - as per AO payment of interest cannot be set off against the interest income - HELD THAT - Any expenditure which is laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of earning of interest income is allowable u/s 57(iii). In the case under appeal before us we find that the borrowed money has been utilized for the purpose of giving advances to others. There is a direct nexus between the money borrowed by the assessee and money advanced by the assessee. The assessee paid interest on the money borrowed by it and has received the interest on the money advanced by it. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the interest paid by the assessee was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning of interest income and therefore the same was rightly claimed u/s 57(iii) and CIT (A) rightly directed for allowing the same. After considering the decision of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd 1997 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT was given by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. The facts of the assessee s case are identical. Therefore the above decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court would be squarely applicable. Considering the facts of the case and respectfully following the above decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court we hold that learned CIT (A) was fully justified in directing the AO to allow deduction of interest paid by the assessee against the interest received by the assessee. AO has disallowed the interest mainly by following the decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. supra which we have already dealt with - Disallowance of interest while computing the assessee s income from other sources and alternatively observed that interest paid by the assessee is also disallowable u/s 14A because borrowed money is utilized for investment in shares. Therefore the limited issue open for our examination is whether the borrowed money has been utilized for the purpose of investment in shares. CIT (A) has recorded the finding that no borrowed money was utilized for investment in shares. After considering the facts of the case and submissions of both the parties we concur with the finding of the CIT(A). In the above circumstances the wider question whether disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D is required to be made or not is not before us. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

2024 (2) TMI 1532 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

Whether the interest expenditure of 12,02,07,944/- incurred by the assessee is allowable as a deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the interest income earned.
Whether the interest expenditure is disallowable under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the alleged use of borrowed funds for investment in shares.
The applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax to the present case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Allowability of Interest Expenditure under Section 57(iii)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act allows deductions for any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income from other sources.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the borrowed funds were directly used to earn interest income, establishing a direct nexus between the interest paid and the interest earned. The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Vodafone South Ltd. Vs. CIT, which allowed such deductions where a direct nexus was established.
Key evidence and findings: The assessee provided a list of creditors and debtors showing that the borrowed funds were used to advance loans, thereby earning interest. This evidence was crucial in establishing the direct nexus required under Section 57(iii).
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied Section 57(iii) to the facts, concluding that the interest expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for earning interest income, thus qualifying for deduction.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the interest expenditure should be disallowed based on the Supreme Court's decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals. However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals, noting that in the latter, the funds were borrowed for setting up a factory, whereas in the present case, the funds were borrowed and directly used to earn interest income.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the interest expenditure was allowable under Section 57(iii) due to the direct nexus with the interest income.

Issue 2: Disallowability of Interest Expenditure under Section 14A

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 14A disallows expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income, with Rule 8D providing the method for determining such disallowance.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not applied Rule 8D and had not demonstrated that borrowed funds were used for investments generating exempt income.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal relied on the CIT(A)'s finding that no borrowed funds were used for investments in shares. The assessee's evidence showed that investments were made using funds other than borrowed money.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied Section 14A and concluded that since there was no use of borrowed funds for exempt income investments, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's reliance on disallowance under Section 14A was rejected due to lack of evidence showing the use of borrowed funds for exempt income investments.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that no disallowance under Section 14A was justified.

Issue 3: Applicability of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals Decision

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court's decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals dealt with the taxability of interest income from surplus funds temporarily invested.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals, noting that the funds in the latter were borrowed for setting up a factory, whereas in the present case, the funds were borrowed and directly used to earn interest income.
Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case did not align with those in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals, particularly regarding the purpose and use of borrowed funds.
Application of law to facts: The Tribunal concluded that the decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals was not applicable to the present case due to differing factual circumstances.
Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument for applying Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals was rejected based on the distinct factual matrix of the present case.
Conclusions: The Tribunal determined that the decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals was not applicable, supporting the allowance of the interest deduction under Section 57(iii).

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "We have no hesitation to hold that the interest paid by the assessee was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning of interest income and therefore, the same was rightly claimed u/s 57(iii) and the learned CIT (A) rightly directed for allowing the same."
Core principles established: A direct nexus between borrowed funds and the earning of interest income can justify the deduction of interest expenditure under Section 57(iii). The applicability of Section 14A requires evidence of the use of borrowed funds for investments yielding exempt income.
Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the interest deduction under Section 57(iii) and found no basis for disallowance under Section 14A. The decision in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals was deemed inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

← Previous Next →