← All Phrases

“disallowance of interest expenditure”

DisallowancesSection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(iii)785 judgments

The decision most relied on for disallowance of interest expenditure is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on disallowance of interest expenditure

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
438 ITR 1 · 2021 · Supreme Court
508
citing judgments

The mixed fund theory is affirmed, holding that no disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A can be made if the assessee possesses sufficient non-interest bearing funds, such as capital and reserves, to cover investments made in tax-free securities.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
410 ITR 466 · 2019 · Supreme Court
501
citing judgments

When mixed funds are available, interest-free advances are presumed to be made from the assessee's own interest-free funds, preventing disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii). This principle also applies to section 14A disallowance, where interest expenditure is not disallowed if surplus funds are available and no direct nexus is established with borrowed funds for investments earning exempt income.

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
408
citing judgments

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
379 ITR 347 · 2015 · Supreme Court
361
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot substitute its judgment for that of a businessman regarding the necessity or reasonableness of an expenditure. If an expense is incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, it is deductible, and the Revenue cannot question its commercial expediency.

Judgments citing disallowance of interest expenditure

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Tarachanthini Financial Services (P) Ltd., Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 549/CHNY/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.473/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Corporate Circle-3(1) United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.549/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Dcit M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1) #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Chennai. United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

appeals are as under: - No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Addition of Increase in share capital 9999000 2 Addition of Unsecured loan 36074309 3 Disallowance of Interest expenditure 4284140 4 Disallowance of Service charges 3299560 5 Addition of Investments 217500493 6 Disallowance of Electronic Transfer charges 7693929 7 Disallowance of Office ... husband. Going by the statement of Smt. Nirmala Chandrasekaran, the said amount was also added to the income of the assessee. 2.5 Disallowance of interest expenditure The assessee claimed interest payment of Rs.42.94 Lacs which was disallowed on the ground that the assessee could not establish that the same

Tarachanthini Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 473/CHNY/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.473/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Corporate Circle-3(1) United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.549/Chny/2010 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Dcit M/S. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Corporate Circle-3(1) #25, Taurus No.1, First Main Road, Chennai. United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Vs. Chennai-600 024. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9272-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DR

appeals are as under: - No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Addition of Increase in share capital 9999000 2 Addition of Unsecured loan 36074309 3 Disallowance of Interest expenditure 4284140 4 Disallowance of Service charges 3299560 5 Addition of Investments 217500493 6 Disallowance of Electronic Transfer charges 7693929 7 Disallowance of Office ... husband. Going by the statement of Smt. Nirmala Chandrasekaran, the said amount was also added to the income of the assessee. 2.5 Disallowance of interest expenditure The assessee claimed interest payment of Rs.42.94 Lacs which was disallowed on the ground that the assessee could not establish that the same

Idfc Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(3), Chennai

ITA 877/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.877/Chny/2018 & 677/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11 Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Vs. Income Tax, Development Finance Company Circle-Ii(3), Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dy. Commissioner Of Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.878/Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Chennai Idfc Limited, (Erstwhile Known As Infrastructure Development Finance Company Vs. Limited), Krm Tower, 8Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : Shri Farookh V. Irani, Advocate : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

appeal against the restricting disallowance to the extent of exempt income. 6. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee submitted that the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A of the Act was covered in favor of the assessee by earlier decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai Bench