CHAMPALAL SURENDRA SARDA (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI
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 the investments were made from interest-free funds (own capital), no interest expenditure could be attributed to them. Therefore, Section 14A was not applicable.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a HUF, made investments of Rs. 2.26 crores from its own capital of Rs. 3.89 crores. The AO disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 11,64,278/- under Section 14A, attributing it to these investments.
What were the issues?
Whether interest expenditure can be disallowed under Section 14A when investments are made from the assessee's own interest-free capital.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony
आदेश / O R D E R
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai dated 25.01.2017 in for the assessment year 2012-13 passed u/s.250(6) r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.
The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Ld.AO for Rs.11,64,278/- invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D. carrying on the business of wholesale trading in textiles. Initially the return was procession U/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected under CASS and assessment was finally framed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2015, wherein the Ld.AO invoked the provisions of Section 14A of the Act and disallowed the interest expenditure amounting to Rs.11,64,278/-, out of the aggregate claim of Rs.36,32,296/- as interest expenditure during the relevant assessment year. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO by relying on various decisions.
At the outset the Ld.AR submitted before us that the assessee’s capital was Rs.3.89 crores out of which investment of Rs.2.26 crores was made for earning tax free income. It was therefore argued that the interest expense incurred by the assessee cannot be attributed towards the investment made for Rs.2.26 crores because the entire amount of investment of Rs.2.26 crores flowed from the capital of the assessee which is interest free fund. The Ld.DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities.
Having heard both the parties, we find merit in the submission of the Ld.AR. When the assessee had made investment of Rs.2.26 crores out of its interest free funds ie., from the assessee’s own capital of Rs.3.89 crores, no interest expenses can be attributable towards such investments. The assessee is at liberty to deal with its interest free funds in whatsoever manner it decides and deploy its interest bearing funds for business purposes. The interest expenses arising out of borrowed funds which is assigned in the business of the assessee is allowable as deduction as per the provisions of the Act. Further the fact that the assessee’s capital of Rs.3.89 crores and the investment of Rs.2.26 crores is not in dispute. Therefore in the case of the assessee provisions of Section 14A will not be applicable because the investments are made from non-interest bearing fund and no expense can be attributable for making such investment. Further the Ld.A.O has not pointed out any other expense towards the investment made by the assessee for Rs.2,26 crores. Therefore, we are of the view that in the case of the assessee provisions of section 14A of the Act will not be applicable.
Accordingly we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition made for Rs.11,64,278/- invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 07th June, 2017.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026