MUKUL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 61(2), NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the interest expense deduction. It found the transaction commercially imprudent for a Chartered Accountant and declined to interfere with the lower authorities' findings.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a Chartered Accountant, borrowed a significant sum from his partnership firm and lent it to a private limited company at a lower interest rate. He claimed the interest paid on the borrowed funds as a deduction against the interest received.
What were the issues?
Whether interest paid on borrowed funds, lent at a lower rate to another entity, is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income, and thus deductible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-20, New Delhi dated 20.01.2020 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1429758/-by restricting the interest expense only to the extent of income earned under section 57 of the Act.
Assessee is a Chartered Accountant by profession. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has borrowed Rs.4,50,91,200/- from M/s. Y. K. Gupta Co. in which he is a partner and has paid interest of Rs.54,06,032/-. The AO further noticed that the assessee has extended a loan of Rs.6,37,49,869/- to M/s. Smartest Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. from which he had received interest of Rs.3976274/- which was claimed deductions u/s.57 of the Act.
The AO was of the opinion that on borrowed funds the assessee has paid interest of Rs.54,06,032/- whereas the assessee has received interest much less from the loan given by him. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the interest of Rs.1429758/- should not be taxed under income from other sources at the same cannot be allowed as income u/s.57 (iii) of the Act. Assessee filed reply which was not accepted by the AO to concluded the assessment proceedings by making addition of Rs.1429758/-.
Assessee agitated the matter before the CIT(A) and strongly contended that the entire amount of Rs.4.50 crores borrowed from M/s. Y. K. Gupta & Company was given as loan to M/s. Smartest Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. the entire interest paid on Rs.4.50 crores should be allowed as expenses u/s. 57 (iii) because the said expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income from M/s. Smartest Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd.
After considering the facts and the submissions the CIT(A) held as under :-
Before me the counsel reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities and the DR strongly supported the assessment order and order of the CIT(A).
I have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. As mentioned elsewhere the assessee is a Chartered Accountant. The assessee borrowed Rs. 4.50 crores from M/s. Y.K. Gupta & Co. a firm of Chartered Accountants wherein the assessee is a partner the assessee extended loan of Rs.6.3 crores to M/s. Smartest Corporate Services Private Limited the assessee is claiming interest paid as deduction from interest received on the ground that interest expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest income. I fail to understand this transaction of the assessee. The assessee is a practicing Chartered Accountant and is not engage in money laundering business. There is no dispute that the assessee has borrowed the money from his firm for the purposes of his profession. The assessee in his wisdom borrowed money at a higher rate of interest and lended the same at a lower rate of interest. In my considered opinion the AO should have disallowed the entire interest claimed by the assessee but I cannot improve the assessment order nor I can improve the order of the CIT(A). In my considered opinion borrowing money at a higher rate of interest from a related party and lending the same at lower rate of interest to an unrelated party defies all commercial prudence expected from a Chartered Accountant. Surrounding circumstances cannot be ignored.
Considering the facts of the case in totality I decline to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2021.
More judgments on Section 57
- Dattatraya Prakash Wankar, Solapur vs ITO WD-2(3), SolapurITA 2210/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aurelia Housing Coperative Society Ltd… vs I.T.O., Ward - 49(4), KolkataITA 2198/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 66/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-Exemp, VadodaraITA 914/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-Exemp, VadodaraITA 913/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026