Borrowed funds and equity investments: interest disallowance u/s36(1)(iii) rejected; s.14A limited to exempt dividends

Disallowance of interest under s.36(1)(iii) turned on whether borrowed funds were diverted to non-business investments. The Tribunal held the AO made no finding linking equity investments to borrowings, and the assessee established the investments were strategic and made on grounds of commercial expediency yielding business advantage; hence s.36(1)(iii) could not be invoked and the Revenue's ground failed. Disallowance under s.14A r.w. Rule 8D was confined to exempt dividend income, consistent with SC/HC authority that disallowance cannot exceed exempt income; the restriction was upheld. An ad hoc disallowance of 20% of "unproved" sundry creditors was deleted because most confirmations were filed and the AO gave no cogent basis for an arbitrary percentage. ROC fees for increase in authorised share capital were treated as capital expenditure and disallowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether proportionate interest was disallowable under section 36(1)(iii) on the basis that interest-bearing borrowings were diverted to make investments in equity instruments allegedly for non-business purposes.

(ii) Whether a disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was warranted and, if so, whether it had to be restricted to the extent of exempt dividend income earned during the relevant year.

(iii) Whether an ad hoc disallowance of a portion of sundry creditors merely for want of confirmations was sustainable when the underlying purchases/expenses were not doubted.

(iv) Whether fees paid for increase in authorised share capital were capital expenditure and therefore not allowable as revenue deduction.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(i) Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) for alleged diversion of borrowed funds

Legal framework: The Court noted that section 36(1)(iii) allows deduction of interest on borrowed capital used for business; where borrowed funds are diverted for non-business purposes, interest relatable to such non-business use is not allowable.

Interpretation and reasoning: The disallowance was premised mainly on an increase in investments alongside an increase in borrowings. The Court held that a mere correlation between increased investments and increased borrowings is insufficient. It found a crucial factual gap: there was no finding establishing that the increased investments were made out of borrowed funds or that loans taken for business were actually diverted to non-business purposes. The Court also accepted that the investments were shown, on evidence, to be strategic and connected with the assessee's business interests, and therefore could not be treated as inherently non-business.

Conclusion: The Court upheld the appellate finding that the necessary factual foundation for invoking section 36(1)(iii) was absent; consequently, the interest disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was not sustainable.

(ii) Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D and its ceiling by exempt income

Legal framework: The Court examined section 14A read with Rule 8D as the mechanism to disallow expenditure relatable to exempt income. It addressed the permissible extent of such disallowance with reference to the exempt income earned in the year.

Interpretation and reasoning: While section 36(1)(iii) disallowance failed for lack of proof of diversion, the Court agreed with applying section 14A in principle because exempt dividend income was earned. It further agreed with the restriction imposed by the appellate authority that the disallowance under section 14A should not exceed the exempt income of the year. The Court treated this restriction as consistent with the governing judicial principle applied in the reasoning that section 14A disallowance cannot surpass the exempt income earned for that assessment year.

Conclusion: The Court upheld the direction to compute disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, restricted to the amount of exempt dividend income earned during the relevant year.

(iii) Ad hoc disallowance relating to sundry creditors for non-furnishing of confirmations

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that confirmations were produced for a substantial portion of creditors and that non-receipt of some confirmations, by itself, did not justify an estimated disallowance. It emphasized that the assessing authority did not provide plausible reasons for disallowing a fixed percentage of remaining creditors and did not demonstrate defects warranting such estimation, particularly when the underlying purchases/expenses were not doubted.

Conclusion: The Court upheld deletion of the ad hoc disallowance; a percentage-based disallowance without cogent reasons was held unsustainable on the facts recorded.

(iv) Fees paid for increase in authorised share capital

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court affirmed the treatment of the expenditure as capital in nature where it was incurred towards increase in authorised share capital. It sustained the disallowance on that basis.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the fees paid for increase in authorised share capital was upheld as capital expenditure.

---