2025 (7) TMI 1582 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - assessee has made advances out of interest bearing funds for non-business purposes hence interest expenditure is not admissible to the assessee - DR emphasizes that these advances were not given for business purposes because genuineness of some of the loanee companies is in doubt - CIT (Appeals) has held that these funds were not interest bearing funds and therefore interest expenses cannot be disallowed - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to note that these appeals are of 2018 lying in this Tribunal for the last seven years and the Revenue has been seeking repeated adjournments and these appeals were adjourned 47 times by one or the other reason. The earlier Bench adjourned the group separately because of the voluminous Paper Books involved therein. However today on 16.07.2025 we have heard M/s Rana Sugar Ltd. also in the same combination for two assessment years therefore we do not find any merit in this suggestion of CIT DR because it has no relevancy with the issues involved therein. Finding of the CIT (Appeals) qua deletion of disallowance made with the aid of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is affirmed in all the four years. Addition u/s 14A - expenses incurred for earning tax free income disallowed - HELD THAT - If any expenses relatable to an income which is otherwise exempt from taxation then no expenditure would be allowed to the assessee as a deduction. CIT (Appeals) has categorically recorded that assessee has not earned any tax free income therefore no disallowance is to be made u/s 14A of the Act. We uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and put reliance upon case of CIT Vs Corrtech Energy Ltd. 2014 (3) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT We also put reliance upon the judgement of Cheminvest Limited vI 2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT whereby Hon ble Delhi High Court has reversed the Special Bench decision of the ITAT.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether interest paid on borrowed capital is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act when advances are made out of interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes.Whether advances made out of interest-free funds to related or unrelated parties without clear business exigency attract disallowance of interest expense under Section 36(1)(iii).Whether the genuineness of parties to whom advances are made affects the allowability of interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii).Whether disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is justified when no exempt income is earned by the assessee.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

Interest paid on borrowed capital is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) only if the borrowed funds are used wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business; advances made out of interest-bearing funds for non-business purposes justify disallowance of interest expense.Where advances are made out of interest-free funds and the assessee demonstrates that such funds exceed the amount advanced, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is warranted, even if the advances are made to related parties or for unclear business purposes; the AO cannot disallow interest expenses on the basis of notional income or presumed use of borrowed funds.The genuineness or otherwise of the parties to whom advances are made is irrelevant to the allowability of interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) if the advances are made from interest-free funds; subsequent or separate reassessment proceedings concerning those parties do not affect the present assessment.Disallowance under Section 14A is not sustainable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income; expenses relatable to tax-free income are disallowed only when such income exists.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory provision of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, which permits deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed "for the purposes of the business or profession," interpreting "used wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business" as a necessary condition.The Court relied on detailed factual analysis of the assessee's balance sheets and bank accounts, establishing that advances were made from non-interest bearing funds (interest-free funds), which were sufficient to cover the advances, thereby negating the AO's presumption of use of borrowed funds.The Court rejected the Revenue's reliance on the genuineness of loanee parties and reassessment orders in connected cases, holding that such subsequent developments are irrelevant to the present appeals and cannot be used to expand the scope of assessment without formal record.The Court referenced authoritative precedents including judgments from High Courts and the Supreme Court affirming the principle that interest deduction is disallowed only when borrowed funds are used for non-business purposes and that notional interest income cannot be imposed on surplus funds.Regarding Section 14A, the Court followed established case law that disallowance of expenses is contingent upon the existence of exempt income, which was not present in the assessee's case.