TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is the Director in M/s Vivilash Colour Labs Private Limited and filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 22/01/2015 declaring total Income of RS.33880/- (Salary Rs.96,000/-+ Income from House Property at Rs.9,79,874/- + Income from Other Sources at Rs.4,38,162/-) after claiming interest on loan from Chola-IDBI invested as Capital in firms of Rs 15,85,752/- and Chapter VIA deduction of Rs.62,120/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 19/12/2016 by accepting the income returned 3.1 On verification of record and the assessment order dated 19/12/2016, it was noticed by the AO that in the computation of total income, partners salary and interest from Vivilash Digital Imaging Centre and Vivilash Colour labs is shown at Nil. However, interest on loan from Chola-IDBI invested as capital in firms of RS.15,85,752/- was claimed arriving at business income of Rs.(-) 15,85,752/-. The net profit of Rs 2,558/- from Vivilash Digital Imaging Centre and Rs.1,36,416/- from Vivilash Color Labs was claimed as exempt. As the loan amount from Chola-IDBI is utilized in earning exempt income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome from House Property by the appellant. The appellant further stated that the sources of the partnership capital were the loans taken from Chola Mandalam Finance and IDBI and these loans were directly invested as the capital of the firm. The appellant relied on the judgment of SA Builders Vs. CIT as reported in 288 ITR 1 and the judgment of Punjab Stainless Steel Industries V. CIT 324 ITR 396 and stated that the capital must have been borrowed by the appellant for the purpose of business for the allowance of the interest on that capital and therefore the disallowance should be deleted The appellant further relied on the fact that the said interest was allowed as a deduction in the earlier year and relied on certain judgments on consistency in this regard. It is very clear that the appellant has invested the funds so borrowed as the share capital of the firms. From the statement of income, the appellant is not receiving any interest on the capital so deployed, nor receiving any remuneration as a working partner in the firm. From these facts it is clear that from the said firms, there was no occasion of generating business income as no remuneration and no interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove issue is, therefore, not debatable in nature as the partnership deeds have been already considered and has no change. In view of the same, the ground no. 2 and 3 are dismissed accordingly. The ground no. 4 is dismissed as the same has been already adjudicated and is a prima facie fact based on records. The ground no. 1 and 5 being general in nature needs no adjudication. 'To sum up appeal is dismissed." 5. Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Hyderabad, is erroneous and unsustainable. 2. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of the AO in disallowing interest expenditure of Rs.15,85,752, which issue is highly debatable, in a proceeding under section 154 of the Act. 3. The finding of the CIT(A) that the issue is not debatable is legally incorrect in as much as investment in capital account not only earns prof1t (which is exempt from tax) but also interest income to be paid to partner, which is taxable. The CIT(A)failed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ible under that section. The Revenue relied strongly on the language of section 37(1) and contrasting the phraseology employed in section 57(iii) with that in section 37(1), pointed out that the Legislature had deliberately used words of narrower import in granting the deduction under section 57(iii). Section 37(1) provided for deduction of expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits or gains of business or profession'. The language used in section 37(1) was "laid out or expended-for the purpose of the business or profession" and not "laid out or expended-for the purpose of making or earning such income" as set out in section 57(iii). The words in section 57(iii) being narrower, contended the Revenue, they cannot be given the same wide meaning as the words in section 37(1) and hence no deduction of expenditure could be claimed under section 57(iii) unless it was productive of income in the assessment year in question. This contention of the Revenue undoubtedly found favour with two High Courts but we do not think we can accept it. Our reasons for saying so ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was claimed as setoff against her other income. I find the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submissions of the ld.Counsel for the assessee that in view of the various decisions including decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mody (supra) & Eastern Investment Ltd.(supra) and various other decisions, there need not be income to claim expenditure u/s. 57 of the I.T.Act. Same is the case even for business income. Therefore, it is his submission that the issue being a debatable one, the provisions of section 154 cannot be applied to the facts of the present case and therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A) upholding the 154 rectification proceedings by the AO is not in accordance with the law. 13. I find sufficient force in the above arguments by the ld.Counsel for the assessee. The assessee in the instant case is a partner in the firm M/s. Vivilash Digital Colour Labs Pvt.Ltd and has invested in the firm by borrowing from financial institutions i.e Chola-IDBI on which she has paid interest of Rs. 15,85,752/-. There is also a provision in the partnership deed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In response to the same, the IDBI clarified that the FD/OD Account No. 0026651000001519 was opened in the name of the assessee in the Year 2011 for personal use and the first disbursement amount was transferred to the current account of Vivilash Digital Color Labs. The same has been admitted as total exempt towards share capital. With regard to the Chola- interest on loan, the same was clarified that the Loan Agreement No. XOHEHYD000000844189 has been sanctioned on 31/10/2012 as a "Home Equity Loan". The Share Capital introduced in the Firms: M/s Vivalash Digitai Imaging Centre @ 25% and Mis Vivilash Digital Color labs @ 45% have been admitted as per the schedule IF of Income tax return filed. Further as per the Sch BF expenses of Rs.12,65,808/- pertaining to M/s. Vivilash Digital Imaging center (AADFV0911 V) admitted as loss has been disallowed. 16.1 As the loan amount from Chola IDBI was utilized in earning exempt income and no income from business has been derived during the year under consideration, the expenses in relation to the partners of the firm as shown in the schedule BP of Rs. 12,65,808/- claimed from the firm VIVILASH DIGITAL IMAGING CENTER (AAOFV0911V) cannot be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the capital must have been borrowed by the appellant for the purpose of business for the allowance of the interest on that capital and therefore the disallowance should be deleted The appellant further relied on the fact that the said interest was allowed as a deduction in the earlier year and relied on certain judgments on consistency in this regard. It is very clear that the appellant has invested the funds so borrowed as the share capital of the firms. From the statement of income, the appellant is not receiving any interest on the capital so deployed, nor receiving any remuneration as a working partner in the firm. From these facts it is clear that from the said firms, there was no occasion of generating business income as no remuneration and no interest was to be received in the capacity of the partner of these firms. Therefore, the only profit which could have been achieved from this deployment was the share of profit of the partnership firms, which is exempt u/s 10. Thus, the said investment could only result in an exempt income and no income could be generated under the head Profit and Gains from Business and Profession or Income from O....