“interest free advances”
The decision most relied on for interest free advances is CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340), cited in 2,118 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on interest free advances
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.
Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.
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.
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.
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.
For interest on borrowed capital to be deductible under Section 36(1)(iii), there must be a nexus between the use of the borrowed funds and the purpose of the business. This decision has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT (2008).
The Supreme Court approves the mixed fund theory, holding that no interest disallowance is warranted under section 36(1)(iii) if investments or advances are made from the assessee's own non-interest bearing funds, even when mixed funds are available. This presumption applies when non-interest bearing funds are sufficient to meet the investments.
Where an assessee has mixed funds (both interest-bearing and interest-free funds) and makes an interest-free advance or investment, it is presumed that the interest-free funds were utilized first if they are sufficient to cover such advances or investments. This prevents disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under Section 36(1)(iii).
