INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KALI FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the interest disallowance was correct. It was noted that the assessee earned more interest income than it paid as interest, and not charging interest on certain loans was based on commercial expediency.
What were the facts?
The assessee paid interest on borrowed money but did not charge interest on loans given to certain parties. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire interest paid, considering it a business expense. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, finding it unsustainable.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of interest expenditure is justified when interest-free loans were advanced on grounds of commercial expediency and interest income exceeded interest expenditure.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.2,118 citing313 ITR 340 · 2009 · HC
- CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.1,261 citing366 ITR 505 · 2014 · HC
- Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT361 citing379 ITR 347 · 2015 · SC · Read judgment
- Chennai in Ranjani Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. ITO4 citing139 Taxmann.com 208 · 2022
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM]
ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM
This appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 12.10.2023 for AY 2018-19 arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 31.04.2021.
The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.5,18,27,770/- as made by the AO on account of disallowance of interest paid.
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2018 declaring gross income of Rs.1,44,27,515/- which was selected for complete scrutiny. The AO issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire which was duly replied by the assessee. The AO observed on the basis of evidences filed by the assessee that assessee had paid interest to the tune of Rs.5,18,27,770/- on borrowed money whereas he has not charged any interest on the loan given to various parties and accordingly, show cause notice was given which was not replied by the assessee. The AO thereafter, noted that the assessee is engaged in the business of advancing loans to its customers after taking money on interest whereas no interest was charged on loans in 23 Kali Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. AY 2018-19 cases which were enumerated in para 6 pages 5, 6 and 7 of the assessment order and finally added the same to the income of the assessee.
3.1. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:
“8.6 After careful consideration of material facts, the undisputed position that emerges is that the assessee has paid interest expenses of Rs. 5,18,27,770 and earned interest income of Rs. 6,44,00,279. The loans advanced by the appellant amount to Rs.148,52,52,780 and the loans taken by it amount to Rs. 126,89,66,690. The appellant has not charged interest on loans advanced to 23 odd parties, while interest was charged from other parties. The AO disallowed entire interest expenses of Rs, 5.18 crore, which were made through banking channels after deducting TDS . On the basis of these facts, I am of the considered opinion that the disallowance of entire interest is not sustainable in the eyes of law. No statutory provision has been brought on record by the AO which mandate deletion of interest expenses in the instant case. The assessee had debited the interest expenditure during the year. 8.7 As per the mandate of sec.36(1)(iii), the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of business or profession is an allowable deduction as held by Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in Ranjani Enterprises (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [2022] 139 taxmann.com 208 (Chennai - Trib.). In the instance case, Ld. AO could have invoked the provisions of sec.36(1 ) (iii) to hold that the borrowed capital was not used for the purposes of business or profession. However, the same has not been done and the provisions of sec.36(1)(iii) have not been invoked for the simple reason that the entire borrowed capital (loans) were used for advancing loans as a part of business. Rather, the AO has disallowed entire interest expenditure without questioning the genuineness of such expenditure. Therefore, the action of the AO, in disallowing the entire interest expenses on the pretext that interest has not been charged on certain advances, in not in accordance with law and hence not sustainable. 8.8 Another aspect of the matter is that the loans have been granted by the appellant to various entities and earned interest from them to the tune of Rs.6.44 crores, which is more than the interest expenditure of Rs.5.18 crores claimed by the appellant. Interest has not been charged from certain entities in "expectation of gains in future", the fact of which was not questioned by the AO. Therefore, non-charging of interest was fully justified by the appellant and the same could be said to have been out of commercial expediency. In such a scenario the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. (supra) would be applicable wherein it was held that once it was established that there was nexus between the expenditure and purposes of business, deduction u/s 36(1 ) (iii) was to be allowed. It was further held that the expression 'commercial expediency' is an expression of wide import and includes such expenditure as prudent businessman incurs for the purpose of business. The total expenditure incurred toward interest payment in the instant case was RS.5.18 crores. This expenditure may not have been incurred under any legal obligation but yet it is allowable as a business expenditure if it was incurred on grounds of commercial expediency. This decision in S.A. Builders Ltd. (supra) has subsequently been followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 63 taxmann.com 308/379 1TR 347. 8.9 I find that the ratio of the above decisions is applicable to the facts of the case considering the arguments of the appellant that not charging of interest on loans advanced to certain entities in purely based on business/commercial expediency. Viewed from any angle, the addition as made by the AO is not sustainable. I hold accordingly. The AO is directed to re-compute appellant's income Kali Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. AY 2018-19 by deleting the impugned addition. The ground of appeal no. 3 stands allowed in terms of my above decision.”
4. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record including the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) we observe that the assessee has incurred interest expenses to the tune of Rs.5,18,27,770/- and earned interest income of Rs.6,44,00,279/- during the year. The loans advanced by the assessee were to the tune of Rs.148,52,52,780/- whereas the loans taken by the assessee were Rs.126,89,66,690/-. The assessee has not charged any interest on the loans advanced to 23 parties while the interest was duly charged from the other parties. Ld. CIT(A) noted that not charging of interest from certain entities as noted by the AO is purely commercial and business expediency by relying on the decision of S. A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT, Civil Appeal No. 5811 of 2006 and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. CIT [2015] 63 taxmann.com 308/379 ITR 347. Besides, it was also observed by us from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee’s own interest free funds comprising of share capital, reserves and surplus and interest free loans were far more than the interest free loans then the presumption is that interest free loans were advanced out of interest free own funds available with the assessee and consequently no disallowance could be made with respect to interest paid which are relatable to interest free loans. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505. Considering these facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the same is affirmed by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shah Brothers, West Singhbhum vs ACIT/DCIT, Cen Cir-1, RanchiITA 239/RAN/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kavya Shrivastava vs. Hdfc Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Gaurav Jewellers Through Proprietor Gaurav Barjatiya vs. Branch Manager Yes Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Kavya Shrivastava vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026