ABHISHEK MEHTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 897/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 August 2025AY 2018-196 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) had not appreciated that the loans advanced were to the business concerns of the assessee, in which the assessee had a key management, partner, or beneficiary interest. The Tribunal found the case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT squarely applicable. The Supreme Court held that if a holding company advances borrowed money to a subsidiary company and the subsidiary uses it for business purposes, the holding company is ordinarily entitled to a deduction for interest on its borrowed loans. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and deleted the disallowance of interest made by the AO. The appeals for both AY 2018-19 and AY 2020-21 were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Abhishek Mehta, filed appeals against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21. The appeals challenge the disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed interest paid exceeding 15% on unsecured loans, amounting to Rs. 9,06,589 for AY 2018-19, because the interest rate paid (12% to 22%) was higher than the interest received (12% to 15%). The NFAC confirmed this disallowance. The assessee argued that the loans were taken to meet business needs of various enterprises and were advanced to these businesses at rates between 12% to 15% without profit motive. The assessee also stated that similar arrangements were made in earlier years without disallowance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in upholding the disallowance of interest made by the AO under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the rate of interest paid on unsecured loans was higher than the interest received? Assessee's contentions: - The disallowance is arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal position that business necessity and commercial expediency must be viewed from the assessee's perspective. (Relied on S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT) - Section 36(1)(iii) allows deduction for interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes without specifying an interest rate benchmark; tax authorities cannot arbitrarily determine an ideal rate without evidence of tax evasion. - If a loan transaction is genuine and used for business, interest paid cannot be disallowed merely because the rate appears excessive compared to other borrowings. - The determining factor for allowability under Section 36(1)(iii) is the purpose of the loan, not comparative interest rates. Revenue's contentions: - The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 08.07.2025Pronounced: 21.08.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid two appeals filed by the assessee for Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-19 & 2020-21 arises out of the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 17.01.2025.

2.

The facts in both the appeals of the assessee are identical and issues are common hence, we proceed to pass a common order. For & 898/Chny/2025 Abhishek Mehta :- 2 -:

2018-19 as lead case. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y 2018-19 are as under:

1.

“1. The order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), is wrong, illegal and is opposed to law and facts of the case.

1.

2. The National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in upholding the interest disallowance made by the AO under section 36(1) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the rate of interest paid on unsecured loans was higher than the interest received.

3. The National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have seen that the said disallowance of interest is arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal position that the business necessity and commercial expediency of the expenditure must be determined from the viewpoint of the assessee, not the Revenue.

4. The National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have seen Section 36(1) (iii) allows a deduction for interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes without specifying any benchmark for the interest rate. The tax authorities cannot arbitrarily determine what should be the ideal interest rate in a business transaction unless there is evidence of an arrangement designed to evade taxes.

5.

The National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have seen that it is a settled law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SA Builders Ltd. V. CIT (2007) 288 ITR 1 (SC) held that the concept of commercial expediency must be seen from the perspective of the businessman and not the tax authorities and that If the loan were taken for business purposes, the interest expense must be allowed.

6.

The National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have seen that once a loan transaction is found to be genuine and used for business, interest paid thereon cannot be disallowed merely because the rate appears excessive in comparison to other borrowings.

7. The National Faceless Appeal Centre ought to have seen the determining factor for allowability under Section 36(1)(iii) is the purpose of the loan and not the comparative interest rates. The revenue authorities having observed that the unsecured loan was taken and utilized solely for business purpose sought to have allowed the interest claimed by the appellant in toto.

& 898/Chny/2025 Abhishek Mehta :- 3 -:

1. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice.”

3. The effective ground of appeal is against disallowing the interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act, paid at higher rate in comparison to the interest received. The A.O in the assessment order has observed that the assessee has paid interest of Rs.1,70,87,880/- at the interest rate between 12% to 22% as against the interest received of Rs.1,63,05,584/- at the interest rate from 12% to 15%. The A.O therefore disallowed the interest paid exceeding to 15% making disallowance of Rs. 9,06,589/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

However, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition.

3.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has argued that the assessee has been carried out enterprises in different entities as partnership firm, LLP and private limited companies and has taken loan to meet the business need of his enterprises. The Ld. AR further submitted that all the loan has been given to its business enterprise at the interest rate between 12% to 15% as it passed through without any profit motive. The Ld. AR has submitted that the & 898/Chny/2025 Abhishek Mehta :- 4 -: similar arrangement has been made in earlier years also and no disallowance has been made. In support of this, the Ld. AR has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 1 (SC) that the concept of commercial expediency must been seen from the point of view of the businessman and not of the tax authority.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has borrowed fund @12% to 21% and advanced to its business enterprises @ 12% to 15%. The A.O has disallowed the interest paid @ 15% treating them excessive. The assessee has advanced loan to its business concerns in which he is one of the key management person, partner or having beneficiary interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders vs. CIT, supra, has held that where it is obvious that a holding company has a peak interest in business subsidiary and hence, if the holding company advanced borrowed money to a subsidiary company and the same is used by the subsidiary company for some business purposes, & 898/Chny/2025 Abhishek Mehta :- 5 -: the assessee would ordinarily be entitled to deduction of interest on its borrowed loans. The Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the fact that loan advanced was to the business concerns of assessee and the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S A builders Ltd., supra, is squarely applicable. In view of above, we reverse the order of Ld CIT(A) and delete the disallowances of interest made by the A.O. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed. for A.Y 2020-21: 6. We find that the identical issue is involved in assessee’s appeals for A.Y 2018-19 also and accordingly, our adjudication above in A.Y 2018-19 is mutatis mutandis applies therein also. Therefore, for the similar reasons, we allow this appeal as well.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced on 21st day of August, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →