Foreign exchange loss, section 14A interest, subsidiary funding and cash payment disallowance were all deleted on business and funding facts.

Foreign exchange fluctuation loss on external commercial borrowing used to acquire a controlling stake in a foreign company was treated as revenue expenditure because the borrowing served business expansion and the loss was distinct from the share acquisition cost. In section 14A read with Rule 8D, interest disallowance was deleted where own funds exceeded the investments and no borrowed funds were shown to have been used; only the administrative component could remain. Interest disallowance on funds advanced to a subsidiary was also deleted because sufficient interest-free funds existed and the advance was supported by commercial expediency. Cash payment disallowance under section 40A(3) was not sustained since payments to each person on a day did not cross the statutory threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether foreign exchange fluctuation loss on external commercial borrowing used to acquire controlling stake in a foreign company was allowable as revenue expenditure; (ii) Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could include interest expenditure when the assessee had sufficient own funds; (iii) Whether the disallowance of interest on borrowings advanced to a subsidiary at a lower rate was justified; (iv) Whether the disallowance under section 40A(3) for cash payments was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether foreign exchange fluctuation loss on external commercial borrowing used to acquire controlling stake in a foreign company was allowable as revenue expenditure.

Analysis: The borrowing was found to have been made to acquire 70% shares in the foreign company for business expansion and enhancement of exports. The acquisition was treated as one undertaken for commercial expediency, and the foreign exchange fluctuation loss was distinguished from the cost of acquisition of the shares. The principle that the cost of raising money is different from the cost of the asset acquired was applied, and the past acceptance of similar foreign exchange gains and losses by the department supported consistency.

Conclusion: The loss was allowable as revenue expenditure and the disallowance was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could include interest expenditure when the assessee had sufficient own funds.

Analysis: The assessee's own funds were found to be far in excess of the investments yielding exempt income. No borrowed funds were shown to have been used for the investments. In such a situation, only the administrative component could survive, and the restriction of disallowance to the amount of exempt dividend income was held to be legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The entire interest-related disallowance was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance of interest on borrowings advanced to a subsidiary at a lower rate was justified.

Analysis: The assessee had sufficient interest-free funds in the form of share capital, reserves and surplus, and the record did not show diversion of borrowed funds for the advances. The lending to the subsidiary was also linked to business interest and commercial expediency. On these facts, no warrant existed to disallow interest merely because the subsidiary charged a lower rate.

Conclusion: The interest disallowance was rightly deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the disallowance under section 40A(3) for cash payments was sustainable.

Analysis: The finding was that payments were made to different persons on different dates and the aggregate cash payment to any one person in a day did not exceed the statutory limit. In the absence of contrary material, the condition for disallowance was not met.

Conclusion: The disallowance was not sustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on all contested substantive additions, while the Revenue failed to establish any basis for interference with the relief granted.

---