← 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

M/S. Akkayya Hospitality Services (Formerly Known As Akkayya Consultancy Services), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2545/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm M/S.Akkayya Hospitality Assistant Commissioner Of Services, Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Akkayya Presently Circle-1[2][1], Consultancy Services), Vs. Bmtc Building, No.21/6, Craig Park Layout, 80 Feet Road, 6Th Block, M.G.Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Aaafz1935B Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Sri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.04.2022 O R D E R Per George Geroge K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)-1, Bengaluru’S Order Dated 26-09-2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2008-09. 2. The Solitary Issue Argued By The Ld.Ar Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Deleting The Entire Disallowance Of Interest Expenditure Made By The Ao (Disallowance Of Interest Expendtiure Made By Ao Rs.3,65,13,949/-).

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Basaganni, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)

solitary issue argued by the Ld.AR is whether the CIT(A) is justified in not deleting the entire disallowance of interest expenditure made by the AO (disallowance of interest expendtiure made by AO Rs.3,65,13,949/-). 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

lend advances to related parties / subsidiaries. 5.8 The learned AOI Hon'ble DRP has erred in law and on facts, in making the disallowance of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 140,46,63,276 based on State Bank of India's prime lending rate ('PLR') even when the Assessee