2025 (3) TMI 923 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's interest expenditure allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) for partnership firm investment, no Section 14A disallowance warranted

Shringar Developers Private Limited Versus ITO, Ward – 13 (2) (3), Mumbai

ITAT Mumbai held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was warranted where the assessee borrowed money for partnership firm investment. ... Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - exempt income in the form of share of profit earned from a partnership firm - HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact is that the assessee had borrowed money for investment in the partnership firm in the form of capital contribution. The assessee has earned taxable interest amounting to Rs. 48,53,903/- and has paid interest of Rs. 41,04,638/- thereby showing positive interest income which is taxable. We are of the considered view that netting off of the interest is permissible in such circumstances as held in the case of CIT v. Jubiliant Enterprises P. Ltd.[2017 (2) TMI 1219 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].Thus we hold that no disallowance is to be made u/s 14A of the Act as the net taxable interest is higher. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - We are of the considered view that investment of borrowed funds as capital contribution in a partnership firm in itself is a business justifying the commercial expedience of the transactions. Therefore, in our considered view, any interest on such borrowed capital has to be allowed. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow the claim of interest paid on borrowed capital invested in Mahavir Developers. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the disallowance of Rs. 35,67,897/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to exempt income from a partnership firm, was justified.Whether the disallowance of interest of Rs. 7,67,050/- under Section 36(1)(iii) was appropriate, considering the interest expense was incurred for business purposes.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISDisallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8DRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. Rule 8D provides the method for determining such disallowance. The Tribunal referenced precedents from the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jubiliant Enterprises P. Ltd. and the Gujarat High Court in PCIT vs. Nirma Credit & Capital (P.) Ltd., which support netting off interest when computing disallowance under Section 14A.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted that netting off of interest is permissible, as supported by the cited precedents. It was reasoned that since the assessee had positive net taxable interest income, the disallowance under Section 14A was not justified.Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee had borrowed funds for investment in partnership firms, resulting in taxable interest income of Rs. 48,53,903/- and interest paid of Rs. 41,04,638/-. The Tribunal found that the assessee's net taxable interest was higher than the interest paid.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle of netting off interest, as established in the cited cases, to conclude that no disallowance should be made under Section 14A since the net taxable interest was higher.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on the Special Bench decision in Vishnu Anant Mahajan vs. ACIT, finding it inapplicable due to different facts.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance under Section 14A was unwarranted and should be deleted.Disallowance of Interest under Section 36(1)(iii)Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 36(1)(iii) allows deduction of interest on borrowed capital used for business purposes. The Tribunal relied on the principle that investment in a partnership firm is a business activity, justifying the interest expense as a business expense.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted that the investment of borrowed funds as capital contribution in a partnership firm constitutes a business activity, thereby justifying the interest expense as commercially expedient.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the assessee's capital contribution in the partnership firm was a business activity, supporting the deduction of interest expense.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that interest on borrowed funds used for business purposes is deductible, concluding that the interest on the capital contribution in the partnership firm should be allowed.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's argument that the interest was not related to commercial expediency, emphasizing the business nature of the capital contribution.Conclusions: The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii).SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that netting off of interest is permissible under Section 14A, supported by precedents from the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts. This principle was applied to determine that no disallowance was warranted since the net taxable interest was higher.The Tribunal established that investment in a partnership firm is a business activity, thereby justifying the deduction of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) as a business expense.The final determination was that the appeal by the assessee should be allowed, with the disallowance under Section 14A deleted and the interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) permitted.