Interest on temporary deposits of borrowed funds must be capitalized and deducted from capital work-in-progress, not taxed as income

ITAT (Mumbai) upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that interest earned on temporary deposits of funds borrowed for executing a highway project must be capitalized and deducted from capital work-in-progress rather than taxed as income from other sources. The Tribunal found the interest inextricably linked to construction activities and supported prior precedent and the assessee's earlier-year treatment. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the CIT(A)'s order sustained.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether interest earned on short-term fixed deposits created by temporarily parking funds that were raised/borrowed and earmarked exclusively for an infrastructure project during its construction phase is capital in nature and may be reduced from Capital Work-in-Progress (CWIP) (i.e., treated as reduction of project cost), or whether such interest is assessable as income under the head "Income from Other Sources".

2. Whether interest earned on unutilised borrowed funds parked in bank deposits lacks nexus with the business activity of project execution (and therefore must be taxed as income from other sources), or whether such receipt can be characterised as "inextricably linked" to the setting up of the project and thus be capitalised.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Characterisation of interest on temporary deposits: capital receipt reducible from CWIP vs. income from other sources

Legal framework: Income must be classified under the heads in section 14; "Income from other sources" is residuary. Whether an item falls under "profits and gains of business" or another head depends on its nexus with business activity. For pre-commencement or during-construction periods, receipts may be capitalised as part of asset cost where they are incidental to setting up the asset.

Precedent treatment: Two lines of Supreme Court authority are central and were considered by the Tribunal and lower authorities. One line (Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals) treats interest earned on surplus funds invested while awaiting use as taxable under "Income from Other Sources". The contrasting line (Bokaro Steel) recognises that receipts which are "inextricably linked" to the setting up of the plant/asset are capital in nature and may be set off against pre-operative expenses or capitalised. Coordinate-bench and High Court decisions (including the jurisdictional Tribunal's prior decision for the same assessee year, Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium, Infrastructure Development Company of Rajasthan, Hazaribagh Ranchi Expressway, and International Coal Ventures) have applied the "inextricably linked" test to hold that interest on funds earmarked for a specific project and temporarily deposited is capitalisable and reducible from CWIP.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined factual matrix: existence of share capital and borrowings expressly raised for the project; audited financials showing CWIP exceeding borrowed funds; deposits were temporary continuations of earlier short-term deposits (no fresh deposits in the year); funds were earmarked and deployed for project expenditure; interest on these deposits had been treated as capitalised in prior year(s). Applying the guiding test, the Court found these funds were not "surplus" in the sense contemplated by Tuticorin but were funds earmarked and inextricably linked with the construction of a time-consuming asset. Therefore the interest earned reduced the net cost of setting up the asset and had the character of capital receipt for the purpose of accounting and tax treatment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The determination that interest on temporarily parked funds which are specifically raised/earmarked for project execution and are "inextricably linked" to the asset under construction is capital in nature and can be reduced from CWIP is treated as the ratio applied by the Court in this judgment. The discussion distinguishing the Tuticorin line of cases and applying Bokaro Steel's principle is integral to the decision (ratio), while general observations about company law (section 208 of Companies Act) and illustrative examples are supportive reasoning (obiter to the extent not necessary for decision but reinforcing the ratio).

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the interest of Rs. 3,44,38,898 earned on short-term deposits representing temporarily parked project funds is capital in nature, is inextricably linked to the highway project under construction, and legitimately reduced CWIP. The interest therefore is not taxable as "Income from Other Sources".

Issue 2 - Nexus between interest earned and business activity; applicability of Tuticorin vs. Bokaro test

Legal framework: The applicable test is whether the funds producing the interest are "surplus" (leading to taxation under other sources) or are "inextricably linked" to the business/asset creation (allowing capitalisation). The Court relied on factual findings to determine which test applies.

Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished): The Court followed and relied upon the ratio of Bokaro Steel and subsequent High Court and Tribunal decisions that distinguish and limit Tuticorin to "surplus" funds. The Court expressly distinguished Tuticorin as applicable where funds were genuinely surplus and not earmarked for project use; Tuticorin was held not to govern cases where funds are raised/earmarked for a specific capital project and merely temporarily invested. Decisions of the Delhi High Court (Indian Oil Panipat) and International Coal Ventures, and coordinate Tribunal precedents were followed as binding/ persuasive local authority supporting the "inextricably linked" approach.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applied the "inextricably linked" test to the present facts: funds were raised (share capital and borrowings) for the specific highway project, audited numbers show deployment consistent with project needs, deposits were temporary continuations, and interest earned served to reduce project cost (i.e., to optimize overall project financing). The Court found no evidence of independent commercial intent to earn interest unrelated to project execution (e.g., an ongoing money-lending business or creation of surplus funds). Therefore the Tuticorin test (surplus funds) did not apply.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that where funds are raised/earmarked for a specific capital project and temporarily invested, the interest earned is of capital character and not taxable under "Income from Other Sources" constitutes the operative ratio. The clarification that Tuticorin applies to surplus funds and Bokaro applies where funds are inextricably linked is part of the ratio; ancillary remarks about companies law and accounting practice are supportive obiter but not essential to the holding.

Conclusions: The Court held that the interest earned had sufficient nexus with the business activity (project execution) to be capitalised. Tuticorin was distinguished on facts; Bokaro and the line of authority that follows it were applied. Consequently, the Revenue's contention that the interest must be taxed under "Income from Other Sources" was rejected.

Final Disposition

The appellate forum sustained the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that interest earned on temporary bank deposits of funds raised/earmarked for the project is capitalisable and reduced from CWIP; the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Court based its conclusion on the factual finding of earmarking/temporary deployment of funds and on the applicable legal principle that distinguishes surplus funds (Tuticorin) from funds inextricably linked to project execution (Bokaro and subsequent authorities).

---