2025 (12) TMI 477 - AT - Income Tax

Deduction of interest-related expenses allowed under ss.57(iii) and 56 when audited books under s.44AB not rejected

ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee-co-operative credit society's claim for deduction under s.57 against interest income assessed under the head 'Income ... Deduction u/s 57 against interest income assessed under the head income from other sources - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the assessee’s contention that the authorities below have neither doubted the genuineness of the expenditure nor rejected the books of account maintained and audited u/s 44AB. The disallowance has been confirmed merely on the premise that the assessee failed to establish one-to-one nexus between expenditure and income assessed under section 56. In our considered view, such an approach is not in accordance with section 57(iii), which requires the expenditure to have a proximate and reasonable nexus with the earning of income and not an exclusive or direct attribution. A co-operative credit society necessarily incurs various administrative, operational, managerial and financial expenses to carry on its statutory activities and earning of interest income is an integral part of such activities. Once the Revenue taxes such income under the head income from other sources, the corresponding expenditure incurred for earning the said income cannot be ignored. On identical facts and comparable working of proportionate expenditure, the co-ordinate bench in Ashapura Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. [2025 (9) TMI 93 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] has held that where the assessee earns interest from deployment of funds arising out of its business activities and such income is assessed under section 56, expenditure attributable to earning such income is allowable under section 57. Thus, we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 57 against interest income assessed under the head income from other sources. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether deduction under section 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable in respect of proportionate expenditure of Rs. 62,57,776/- against interest income assessed under the head 'Income from Other Sources' under section 56. 1.2 What degree and nature of 'nexus' between expenditure and interest income is required under section 57(iii), particularly in the context of a co-operative credit society earning bank interest from deployment of its funds. 1.3 Whether levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C requires independent adjudication when quantum is modified. 1.4 Whether a ground challenging initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A is maintainable at the stage of appeal against the assessment order. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 2.1 Deduction of proportionate expenditure under section 57 against interest income taxed under section 56 Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1.1 The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the relevant provision is section 57(iii), which permits deduction of expenditure (not being capital expenditure) 'laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning' income chargeable under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. 2.1.2 It was also noted that the interest income in question had been assessed under section 56 as 'Income from Other Sources' and that the assessee claimed deduction under section 57 on a proportionate basis. Interpretation and reasoning 2.1.3 The Tribunal recorded that the assessee is a registered co-operative credit society, governed by the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, engaged in accepting deposits from members and advancing credit facilities, and that placement of funds in deposits with scheduled and co-operative banks is an integral and regular part of its business cycle for maintaining liquidity, complying with statutory requirements and deploying idle funds. 2.1.4 On facts, the Tribunal noted that audited financial statements reflected gross receipts of Rs. 3,41,06,842/- and total expenditure of Rs. 2,72,51,731/-, and that the assessee had demonstrated, through reconciliation, that Rs. 72,02,233/- was disallowable and Rs. 7,68,535/- was to be added back, resulting in total 'allowable' expenditure of Rs. 2,08,20,033/-. 2.1.5 The Tribunal accepted that the assessee had adopted a 'scientific' proportionate method by computing an expense-income ratio of 61.04% (Total Allowable Expenditure ÷ Total Income), and, applying this ratio, had attributed expenditure of Rs. 20,24,026/- to interest from scheduled banks and Rs. 42,33,750/- to interest from co-operative banks, aggregating to Rs. 62,57,776/-. 2.1.6 The Tribunal found that ledger extracts, audited statements, expenditure schedules and computation workings had been placed on record and were filed before the lower authorities; the genuineness of the expenditure and the audited books of account had not been doubted, nor had the books been rejected. 2.1.7 The Tribunal held that the disallowance was sustained by the lower authorities only on the premise that the assessee failed to establish a 'one-to-one' or exclusive nexus between specific items of expenditure and the particular interest income assessed under section 56. 2.1.8 Interpreting section 57(iii), the Tribunal held that what is required is a 'proximate and reasonable nexus' between the expenditure incurred and the income earned, and not an exclusive or direct transactional attribution. It observed that a co-operative credit society necessarily incurs administrative, operational, managerial and financial expenses for its statutory activities, and earning of bank interest is an integral part of such activities. 2.1.9 The Tribunal reasoned that once the Revenue chooses to tax such interest income under the head 'Income from Other Sources', it cannot ignore the corresponding share of expenditure incurred in the course of the same activity that generated such income, so long as a reasonable and proximate connection is established. 2.1.10 Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision on materially identical facts (where proportionate expenditure was allowed under section 57 on interest earned from deployment of business funds assessed under section 56), the Tribunal found the present case to be on an equal or stronger footing, as the computation here was more elaborate and supported by audit records and detailed workings. 2.1.11 The Tribunal further noted that the Department had placed no material to show that the expenditure was fictitious, unrelated to the activity, capital in nature, or unsupported by records, nor had any specific defect been pointed out in the assessee's working or its reasonableness. Conclusions 2.1.12 The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a sufficient proximate and reasonable nexus between the expenditure claimed and the interest income assessed under section 56, and that proportionate attribution on the basis of the expense-income ratio was acceptable in the facts. 2.1.13 It concluded that the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 62,57,776/- under section 57 of the Act against the interest income brought to tax under 'Income from Other Sources' and directed deletion of the disallowance, setting aside the order of the first appellate authority to that extent. 2.2 Nature of nexus required under section 57(iii) and permissibility of proportionate attribution Legal framework (as discussed) 2.2.1 The Tribunal proceeded on the settled principle under section 57(iii) that deduction is admissible only in respect of expenditure (other than capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. Interpretation and reasoning 2.2.2 The Tribunal reaffirmed that the statutory test is not of a strict 'one-to-one' or direct transactional nexus but of a 'proximate and reasonable connection' between the expenditure and the earning of the income in question. 2.2.3 It recorded that the funds placed in bank deposits were sourced from interest-bearing deposits collected from members and that the management and placement of such funds inherently involved administrative effort and expenditure, thereby creating a reasonable nexus between a portion of overall administrative expenditure and the interest income earned. 2.2.4 The Tribunal emphasized that only such proportion of the total expenditure as can reasonably be attributed to the earning of interest income taxable under section 56 can be allowed under section 57(iii), and that a proportionate, ratio-based allocation is permissible where it is backed by audited figures and a rational methodology. 2.2.5 It rejected the revenue authorities' insistence on an exclusive, direct item-wise linkage as being inconsistent with the statutory standard, and reiterated that consistent judicial view allows deduction when the assessee demonstrates proximate connection, even without granular transactional segregation. Conclusions 2.2.6 The Tribunal held that, in the case of a co-operative credit society deploying funds arising from its core activities, a proportionate attribution of common administrative and related expenditure to interest income assessed under section 56 satisfies the requirement of section 57(iii). 2.2.7 It affirmed that denial of deduction solely on the ground of absence of direct, one-to-one nexus is legally unsustainable where the assessee has furnished a reasonable, audited and scientifically worked out basis of apportionment. 2.3 Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C Interpretation and reasoning 2.3.1 The Tribunal observed that liability to interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C is generally consequential and dependent upon the assessed tax liability as finally determined. Conclusions 2.3.2 It held that the ground challenging levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C does not call for separate adjudication and that the interest, if any, is to be recomputed consequentially in accordance with the final assessed income. 2.4 Challenge to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A Interpretation and reasoning 2.4.1 The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised a ground against initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A, though no penalty had yet been imposed. 2.4.2 It held that such a ground is premature at the stage of quantum appeal, as initiation of penalty is only a step in the subsequent, distinct penalty proceedings. Conclusions 2.4.3 The Tribunal dismissed the ground challenging initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A as premature, while reserving liberty to the assessee to contest the matter in accordance with law if and when any penalty order is actually passed.