TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in not considering the fact that the matching principle in terms of income and expenditure is not applicable when cash system of accounting is followed as sine qua non for allowability of expenditure there should be nexus between the income and expenditure reported for the year in question as applicable in terms of Sections 36 and 37 of the Income Tax Act?" 3. We have heard Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant / revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the respondent / assessee. 4. The above substantial questions of law have been filed against the revenue in assesseee's own case in T.C.A. No.166 of 2019 for the assessment year 2013-2014 and by Judgment dated 21.02.2019, this Court dismissed the said appeal. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: "3. Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, urged before us that the Assessing Authority as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had rightly disallowed the claim of interest by the Assessee under Section 36 (1) of the Act, but the Tribunal has erred in deleting the said addition, as the Asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id, there could be difference. That apart, copy of the partners current account placed at paper book page 10, shows that debit balances in partners current account arose more on account of losses suffered in the earlier years, than due to any drawings by the partners. It might be true that it had received interest only from four individuals to which it had advanced amounts during the relevant previous year. This does not mean that assessee had not received interest from other parties in other years. During the previous assessment year 2009-2010, it had received interest of Rs. 13,34,06,510/- from persons to whom it had advanced loans. Hence in our opinion, it is obvious that disparity between interest received and interest payment arose not on account of any selective charging of interest, but on account of cash basis system followed by the assessee. There is nothing in the statute which stopped the assessee from following the cash system of accounting. In assessee's own case for assessment year 2009-2010 on Revenue appeal (ITA No.1690/Mds/2013, dated 27.11.2013), this Tribunal had held as under :- '6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the assessee is an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elf, for the previous Assessment Years in T.C.A.No.2657 of 2006 and other connected matters, decided on 17.09.2014, had held in favour of the Assessee that deduction under Section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act was allowed, though the Assessee had borrowed the capital for the purpose of business of investments. The relevant portion of the said judgment is also quoted below for ready reference : "7. We may firstly consider the first three questions as to whether the interest of borrowed capital which was utilised in the business of shares both by way of investment and stock-intrade is allowable deduction. In so far as first three questions are concerned, in our opinion, a co-ordinate Bench of this court in CIT v. Lokhandwala Construction Inds.Ltd. (2003) 260 ITR 579 (Bom.), had addressed itself to this issue. Reliance was placed on India Cements Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) which was under Section 10 (2) (iii) of the Income-Tax Act,1922 which corresponds to Section 36 (1) (iii) of the present Act. This Court answered the issue in the following manner (page 581) : 'That, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act, the nature of the expens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest was paid on the borrowed capital. It is to be established that the amount was borrowed for the purpose of business or profession. The amount borrowed may be utilized for the purpose of acquisition of stock-in-trade or for the purpose of acquisition of capital assets. But so long as the money is utilised for business purposes the interest will have to be allowed as deduction. It is well settled that business expenditure is not confirmed to expenses incurred on revenue account. Capital expenditure may not be allowed as a deduction under section 37 because the section specifically bars any deduction of expenditure of capital nature. But section 36 is differently worded. There is no bar in section 36 (1) (iii) to allowance of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed which has been utilised for purchase of a capital asset. The position of law in this regard was explained by the Supreme Court in the cases of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC) and State of Madras v. G.J.Coelho (1964) 53 ITR 186 (SC)'' (emphasis supplied). " 8. We have considered the reasoning given in the decisions referred to supra and are in respectful agreement with the view expressed ....