Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Asha Lalit Kanodia v. Addl. CIT 2016 TaxPub(DT) 3229 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Raj Kumari Agarwal v. Dy. CIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3364 (Agra-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3351 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 2014 TaxPub(DT) 3009 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Raj Shipping Agencies Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1816 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Director of Income-tax (IT) v. BNP Paribas SA 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1691 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0717 (Asr-Trib)
REFERRED Justice Sam P. Bharucha v. Addl. CIT 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0425 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Priya Exhibitors (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2013 TaxPub(DT) 0127 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Asstt. CIT v. Mohan Exports (P.) Ltd. 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2702 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT 2012 TaxPub(DT) 0651 (SC)
REFERRED Bunge Agribusiness (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2012 TaxPub(DT) 0393 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Maxopp Investment Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT & Ors. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 2171 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Ntn Manufacturing India (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT 2011 TaxPub(DT) 2126 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Asstt. CIT v. Delite Enterprises (P) Ltd. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0558 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Asstt. CIT v. Sun Investments (P) Ltd. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0126 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Anr. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2182 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0960 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED Dharmasingh M. Popat v. Asstt. CIT 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0289 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1275 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED ITO v. Daga Capital Management (P) Ltd. 2009 TaxPub(DT) 0954 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED Dy. CIT v. Mrs. Rainee Singh 2009 TaxPub(DT) 0775 (Del-Trib)
REFERRED Asstt. CIT v. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2387 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED CIT v. Atul Jain 2008 TaxPub(DT) 0697 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Mahesh Gum & Oil Industries 2007 TaxPub(DT) 0184 (Raj-HC)
REFERRED Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar 2004 TaxPub(DT) 1424 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Ors. 2002 TaxPub(DT) 1670 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Joint CIT & Ors. v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. 2002 TaxPub(DT) 1610 (Gau-HC)
REFERRED Bawa Abhai Singh v. Deputy CIT 2002 TaxPub(DT) 0311 (Del-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. 1999 TaxPub(DT) 1027 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED N.D. Bhatt, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner & Anr. v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation 1995 TaxPub(DT) 0176 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 1985 TaxPub(DT) 1293 (SC)
REFERRED Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. 1981 TaxPub(DT) 0952 (SC)
REFERRED CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody 1978 TaxPub(DT) 1028 (SC)
REFERRED Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha & Ors. 1971 TaxPub(DT) 0314 (SC)
 
The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3932 (Mum-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 57(iii)

Where assessee did not incur expenditure directly linking interest income but incurred loss by arranging funds for earning interest income, considering that there was no doubt that assessee was into arranging funds and earned interest income by refinancing to the other parties and difference in rates in refinancing was the income of assessee, as it was the nature of business and thus, all expenditure (including interest) incurred earning income was allowable expenditure.

Income from other sources - Disallowance of interest - Interest expenditure allegedly not expended wholly or exclusively for purpose of making or earning interest income -

Assessee showed interest income earned from various parties. AO alleged that assessee did not prove interest expenditure was laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for purpose of making or earning interest income, there was no connection with or relation to the interest income earned and the expenditure claimed were not as per section 57(iii). Accordingly, AO disallowed the interest expenditure. Held: In the given case, assessee did not incur expenditure directly linking interest income but incurred loss by arranging funds for earning the interest income. One cannot segregate the income alone without considering the object of the transaction or nature of the business of earning the interest income and expenses includes loss vice versa. No doubt that assessee was into arranging funds and earned interest income by refinancing to the other parties and difference in rates in refinancing was the income of assessee. It was the nature of business and all the expenditure incurred in earning the income was allowable expenditure. It was only characterization whether it was relating to expenses incurred to earn income or loss incurred in the process of making the income. Therefore, interest expenditure incurred by the assessee would fall under the category of loss. Therefore, it was allowed as an expenditure.

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. : 2011-12


INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 14A

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT