Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and held that the disallowance of interest expenditure claimed as a deduction against interest income from the partnership firm was not sustainable. The assessee had sourced funds from both interest-bearing loans and non-interest-bearing funds, which were majorly invested in the capital of partnership firms for business purposes. The revenue contended that since the investment did not earn any income except from one firm, the interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii) was not allowable. However, the ITAT observed that the commercial expediency must be considered for allowability u/s 36(1)(iii), and the revenue did not raise any contention in this regard. The ITAT noted that without establishing a one-to-one match, it cannot be said that the borrowed funds were used for giving interest-free loans and advances. As some loans extended were earning interest, the disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) was not sustainable.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and held that the disallowance of interest expenditure claimed as a deduction against interest income from the partnership firm was not sustainable. The assessee had sourced funds from both interest-bearing loans and non-interest-bearing funds, which were majorly invested in the capital of partnership firms for business purposes. The revenue contended that since the investment did not earn any income except from one firm, the interest paid u/s 36(1)(iii) was not allowable. However, the ITAT observed that the commercial expediency must be considered for allowability u/s 36(1)(iii), and the revenue did not raise any contention in this regard. The ITAT noted that without establishing a one-to-one match, it cannot be said that the borrowed funds were used for giving interest-free loans and advances. As some loans extended were earning interest, the disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) was not sustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
