2025 (4) TMI 904 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(iii) - interest expenses on borrowed capital - AO disallowing the expenditure claimed on the ground that assessee allegedly did not carry out any business activity during the year under consideration - whether actual receipt of revenue from the principal business activity could be considered as indication or a barometer to suggest the continuity of business which in turn would qualify the assessee to claim expenditure in its return of income? - CIT(A) allowed claim - HELD THAT - Stance adopted by AO is not justifiable as assessee had been into the business which includes costs which are fixed in nature and other wise. Merely not having revenue receipts cannot be the yard stick to decide allowability of the expenditure. Section 36(1)(iii) states that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession would be allowable as a deduction. Proviso to the said section provides that any amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset or extension of existing business or profession or any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was put to use shall not be allowed as deduction. In the present case before us the proviso to the said section does not apply since assessee has undertaken a project which forms part of its stock in trade and not a fixed asset. On these facts the questions which were considered by the Hon ble Court was on the allowability cost of interest paid on the loans borrowed by the assessee and whether it would fall within the scope of section 36(1)(iii) as examined by the Tribunal. We also take note of the observations and findings of ld. CIT(A) who on similar view has deleted the disallowance made by AO. No reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee. Accordingly grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this appeal include:

1. Whether the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act for interest expenses on borrowed capital is allowable when the capital borrowed was for a project that was cancelled during the financial year under consideration.

2. Whether the assessee carried out any business activity during the year under consideration, and if not, whether the expenditure claimed, particularly interest on borrowed capital, can be disallowed on that ground.

3. Whether the absence of actual revenue receipts from the principal business activity during the year can be a valid criterion to deny deduction of expenses incurred in relation to the business.

4. The applicability of the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) regarding interest paid on borrowed capital for acquisition of an asset, specifically whether the project under development qualifies as a capital asset or stock-in-trade, and the consequent impact on allowability of interest deduction.

5. The relevance and application of judicial precedents concerning the allowability of interest expenses on borrowed capital where the project is under development but not yet generating income.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1 & 2: Allowability of Interest Deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) When Project was Cancelled and No Business Activity Carried Out

The relevant legal framework is section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, which allows deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession. The proviso excludes interest on capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset until the asset is put to use.

The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the interest deduction on the ground that the assessee did not carry out any business activity during the year and the project for which the capital was borrowed was cancelled. The AO reasoned that since there was no income under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business' and no actual work was done, the expenditure was not allowable.

The assessee contended that the borrowed funds were utilized for payment of refundable security deposits under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) for a real estate project, and that various expenses including interest were incurred in relation to the project, which was part of its stock-in-trade. The assessee also demonstrated that the loss claimed for the year under consideration was carried forward and set off against profits in the subsequent year, which was accepted by the Revenue.

The Court noted that the sole basis for disallowance by the AO was the absence of income from business activity during the year. However, the Court held that mere absence of revenue receipts cannot be the yardstick to deny deduction of expenses incurred for business purposes. The Court emphasized that section 36(1)(iii) permits deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed for business, and the proviso applies only when the capital is borrowed for acquisition of a capital asset, which is not the case here as the project forms part of stock-in-trade.

Key evidence included confirmation of borrowings, payments made to landowners, and documentation of expenses incurred on architects and other project-related costs. The assessee's return and subsequent acceptance of carried forward losses by the Revenue in later years further supported the claim.

The Court rejected the AO's approach that no business activity equates to no allowability of expenses, reasoning that business operations may involve fixed and ongoing costs even before revenue generation.

Issue 3 & 4: Applicability of Proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) and Classification of Project as Stock-in-Trade vs. Capital Asset

The proviso to section 36(1)(iii) disallows interest deduction on capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset until the asset is put to use. The Court examined whether the project under development qualifies as a capital asset or stock-in-trade.

The Court found that the project was part of the assessee's stock-in-trade and not a capital asset. Therefore, the proviso did not apply, and interest on borrowed capital was allowable as a deduction. This distinction is crucial because the proviso is designed to prevent deduction of interest on capital borrowed for acquiring fixed assets not yet used in business, but does not extend to stock-in-trade or projects under development.

Issue 5: Precedential Support from Judicial Decisions

The Court relied on a precedent from the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT(A) vs. Ceebros Hotels Pvt. Ltd., where the issue was the allowability of interest on loans taken for purchasing land for a new residential project. The Court in that case held that the term "put to use" applies only to capital assets and that substantial activities undertaken on the project evidenced that the property was effectively put to use for business purposes, allowing the interest deduction.

This precedent supported the view that interest on borrowed capital for a project forming part of stock-in-trade is allowable even if the project has not yet generated income or been completed.

Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Court carefully analyzed the facts including the nature of borrowings, utilization of funds, payments to landowners, and expenses incurred on project development. The assessee's argument that the project was ongoing and part of stock-in-trade was accepted over the AO's contention of no business activity due to absence of income.

The AO's reliance on absence of profits and business activity was rejected as an incorrect interpretation of the law under section 36(1)(iii). The Court held that expenses incurred, including interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes, are allowable deductions even if the business has not yet generated revenue.

The Court also considered the subsequent acceptance of loss carry forward by the Revenue in the following assessment year, which reinforced the assessee's position.

Conclusions

The Court concluded that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the interest deduction on the ground that no business activity was carried out or that the project was cancelled. The proviso to section 36(1)(iii) was not applicable as the project was stock-in-trade, not a capital asset. The assessee's claim for deduction of interest expenses was justified and supported by documentary evidence and judicial precedent.

The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed accordingly.

Significant Holdings:

"The sole basis adopted by ld. Assessing Officer dislodging the claim of assessee is that, there is no income under the head 'profit and gains' of business and hence no business activity has been carried out by the assessee during the year, there by allowability of expenses does not arise. Such a stance adopted by ld. Assessing Officer is not justifiable as assessee had been into the business which includes costs which are fixed in nature and other wise. Merely not having revenue receipts cannot be the yard stick to decide allowability of the expenditure."

"Section 36(1)(iii) states that the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession would be allowable as a deduction. Proviso to the said section provides that any amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset or extension of existing business or profession or any period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset, till the date on which such asset was put to use, shall not be allowed as deduction."

"In the instant case, the assessee was able to establish that substantial activities had been done in the project, which would go to show that the property purchased has been put to use."

Core principles established include that absence of revenue or profits does not preclude the allowability of interest expenses incurred for business purposes; the proviso to section 36(1)(iii) applies only to capital assets and not to stock-in-trade; and that substantial activities undertaken on a project can constitute putting the asset to use for the purpose of business.

Final determination: The deduction claimed under section 36(1)(iii) for interest on borrowed capital was allowable despite no revenue generation during the year, as the project was part of stock-in-trade and the assessee had undertaken substantial activities related to the business. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.