KGA INVESTMENTS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since there was a direct link between borrowed funds and the fixed deposits earning interest, the interest expenditure should be set off against the interest income. Both are revenue in nature, justifying netting.
What were the facts?
The assessee borrowed funds for its business but temporarily placed them in fixed deposits to earn interest, netting this against interest expenditure. The AO disallowed the deduction of interest expenditure, treating the earned interest as income from other sources.
What were the issues?
Whether interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds, which were temporarily invested to earn interest income, can be set off against such interest income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-28, Mumbai dated 02/03/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. The only grievance of assessee relates to decline of deduction u/s.57(iii) in respect of interest paid on the borrowings which was used for earning interest income. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 4. Facts in brief are that assessee is engaged in the business of building construction. During the year under consideration, assessee has borrowed some funds for the purpose of its business. Since the funds were not immediately required in order to reduce interest liability / expenditure, the M/s. KGA Investments assessee put fund temporarily in fixed deposit. On such deposits, the assessee has interest income which he netted out of the interest expenditure and the balance interest expenditure were carried to the balance sheet and added to the work in progress. The AO was of the view that since fund was borrowed for the business purpose, the same is deductable out of business income only and assessee was to pay tax on the interest income earned from the deposit so made under the head income from other sources.
By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO.
I have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. I had also verified the bank statement indicating taking overdraft / loan from the bank which was subsequently used by assessee temporarily for making FDRs on which interest was earned. There is no dispute to the one to one link between the amount borrowed and the amount invested. Interest expenditure incurred and the interest income earned both are in revenue in nature. Accordingly, I do not find any justification for decline of netting of interest expenditure against interest income when there is no dispute to the fact that only borrowed fund was put in the deposit for earning interest income. The act of borrowing was first and then such borrowed funds were put in the fixed deposit earning interest income. Accordingly, I direct the AO to set off the interest income against the interest expenditure so incurred by the assessee.
More judgments on Section 57(iii)
- Raghuraj Singh Rajawat, Jaipur vs DCIT-ACIT Cirle Silchar/DCIT Circle 1…ITA 143/GTY/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Nagini Cooperative Credit Society Limited… vs ITO, Ward 6(2)(1), Bangalore, BengaluruITA 619/BANG/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- DCIT CC 5.4, Mumbai vs Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, MumbaiITA 3412/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- DCIT CC 5.4, Mumbai vs Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, MumbaiITA 3411/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- DCIT CC 5.4, Mumbai vs Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, MumbaiITA 3410/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed15 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026