2025 (6) TMI 697 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 14A - expenditure incurred on exempt income - HELD THAT - We note that the CIT(A) s has quoted PCIT Vs. Oil Industries Development Board 2019 (3) TMI 1571 - SC ORDER and Cheminvest Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT that the impugned disallowance provision gets attracted only if any exempt income has been declared by the concerned assessee. Section 14A explanation inserted in the Act by the Finance Act 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2022 that deriving actual exempt income is more conditioned precedent to make section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance. We see no merit in the Revenue s instant latter arguments as well in light of PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. 2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein their lordships have held that the foregoing statutory amendment only carrying prospective effect. We thus reject the Revenue s instant former substantive ground in very terms. Addition u/s 36(1)(iii) for interest disallowance - HELD THAT - We find no merit in the Revenue s instant latter substantive ground as well once the CIT(A)/NFAC has first concluded that the assessee had been having sufficient interest free funds. And also that there was commercial expediency indeed involved in the interest free loans given to the subsidiaries. We thus quote Reliance Utilities and Power 2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT that the necessary presumption such an instance is that utilization of interest free funds only for non-business purposes. We indeed deem it appropriate to further observe that even commercial expediency is such an instance has to be seen from the arm-chair of the concerned taxpayer s only in light of S. A. Builders Ltd. 2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT We thus reject the Revenue s instant latter substantive ground as well in very terms.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered in the appeal are:

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,10,19,795/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment year.

2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,92,70,233/- disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act on account of interest paid on borrowed funds, particularly when the Assessing Officer alleged diversion of interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes by advancing interest-free loans to subsidiaries.

3. Whether the Assessing Officer rightly followed the CBDT circular and legal precedents in disallowing expenses despite no exempt income being earned in the subject assessment year.

4. Whether the assessee failed to substantiate the commercial expediency and justification behind advancing interest-free loans to its subsidiary companies during the relevant assessment year.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 14A of the Income Tax Act disallows expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. The CBDT Rule 8D provides a method for computing such disallowance. The Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Oil Industries Development Board (2019) and Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) held that disallowance under section 14A is attracted only if the assessee has earned exempt income.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted the undisputed fact that the assessee did not earn any exempt income in the relevant year. The CIT(A) relied on binding Supreme Court precedents to hold that section 14A disallowance cannot be invoked in absence of exempt income.

Application of Law to Facts: The Revenue's argument citing the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to section 14A explanation (effective from 01.04.2022) was rejected as the amendment is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the section 14A disallowance, finding no merit in the Revenue's appeal on this ground.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii) on account of diversion of interest-bearing funds

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 36(1)(iii) allows deduction of interest paid on borrowed capital used for business purposes. The Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. vs. CIT (2007) held that interest paid on borrowed funds advanced as interest-free loans to sister concerns is allowable if the advance is made out of commercial expediency. Other relevant precedents include Commissioner of Income Tax (Large Tax Payer Unit) vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (Bombay HC), South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (SC), and Ganpati Associates (Allahabad HC). These cases establish that if interest-free funds are sufficient to meet investments or loans advanced, it is presumed that such loans are funded from interest-free funds, and interest paid on borrowed funds is allowable.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Assessing Officer disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 9,92,70,233/- on the ground that the assessee diverted interest-bearing funds by advancing interest-free loans to subsidiaries and others. The assessee submitted detailed analysis showing availability of substantial interest-free funds (share capital, reserves, and interest-free loans from subsidiaries) totaling over Rs. 509 crores, which was sufficient to cover the interest-free advances of approximately Rs. 20.9 crores.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had offered interest income of Rs. 7.86 crores and revenue from operations, indicating business activity and interest earning from loans advanced. The Assessing Officer failed to prove that interest-bearing funds were diverted for non-business or personal use. The Tribunal relied on the principle that the assessee has the right to appropriate funds and that investments are presumed to be made from interest-free funds if sufficient.

Key Evidence and Findings: The balance sheet and detailed loan schedules showed the availability of interest-free funds exceeding the amount of interest-free loans advanced. The assessee's submissions clarified that the interest-free advances were made from own funds and not from borrowed funds. The Tribunal also noted the absence of any evidence that the loans were for non-business or personal purposes.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to substantiate commercial expediency and that the funds were diverted. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the principle from S.A. Builders Ltd. that commercial expediency must be judged from the assessee's perspective, not the Revenue's. The Tribunal also distinguished the Revenue's reliance on the CBDT circular and prior decisions, holding that the facts of sufficient interest-free funds and business purpose negated the disallowance.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the settled legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the interest paid on borrowed funds was allowable since the funds were used wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Only a nominal amount of Rs. 14,774/- relating to TDS on interest was disallowed as not being allowable expenditure under section 36(1)(iii).

Conclusion: The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 9,92,55,459/- and allowed the interest deduction except for the small disallowance on TDS interest.

Issue 3: Applicability of CBDT circular and precedents in absence of exempt income

The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular and precedents cited by the Revenue for disallowance under section 14A and section 36(1)(iii) were not applicable in the absence of exempt income or where the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue cannot disregard the facts established by the assessee and the binding precedents.

Issue 4: Failure to substantiate commercial expediency for interest-free loans to subsidiaries

The Tribunal examined the submissions and evidence regarding the commercial expediency of advancing interest-free loans. It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in S.A. Builders Ltd. that commercial expediency is a broad concept encompassing prudent business decisions even if not legally obligated. The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated commercial expediency by showing that the loans were advanced for business purposes and were funded from own interest-free funds. The Revenue's failure to provide contrary evidence or demonstrate misuse of funds led to rejection of this ground.

Significant Holdings

"The impugned disallowance provision gets attracted only if any exempt income has been declared by the concerned assessee."

"If interest-free funds are available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investments, it is presumed that investments were made from the interest-free funds available."

"The expression 'commercial expediency' is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure, as a prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation, but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure, if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency."

"The Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case."

"Once it is established that the borrowed funds were used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, interest paid on such borrowed funds is allowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act."

"The disallowance of interest paid amounting to Rs. 9,92,70,233/- is not sustainable where the assessee had sufficient own funds and commercial expediency was established."

Final Determinations

1. The disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was correctly deleted as the assessee did not earn any exempt income during the relevant assessment year.

2. The disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii) was not justified as the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover interest-free loans advanced, and the loans were made out of commercial expediency. The interest paid on borrowed funds was therefore allowable except for a nominal disallowance on TDS interest.

3. The Revenue's reliance on CBDT circulars and precedents was misplaced in the facts of this case.

4. The assessee successfully substantiated commercial expediency for advancing interest-free loans to subsidiaries, and the Assessing Officer's contrary conclusion was rejected.

Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed in the terms outlined above.