NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (15 Sep 2023)

When interest free funds were used for making tax-free investment, no disallowance under Section 14A of IT Act is sustainable

MANU/IB/0441/2023

Direct Taxation

In present case, Revenue’s appeal is against deletion of disallowance of Rs.5,04,35,666 made on account of interest expenses under Section14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned disallowance made by the AO in the light of various judicial precedents on the issue that, when interest free funds are available, which is more than the investment made for earning exempted income, by the assessee, the presumption is that, investment so made is out of interest free fund. There is no material to support the case of the Revenue that, the assessee had utilized borrowed funds for investment for earning exempt income. Admittedly, similar claim of the assessee was allowed by the CIT(A) for the earlier year, and was accepted by the Revenue.

Furthermore, the proposition that if interest free funds are more than that invested in shares and securities to earn exempt income, and that it was not proved that any borrowed funds were utilized for such investments, then the presumption is that the interest free funds were used for making investment and no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is permissible, is settled by the Apex court in its decision in South Indian Bank Ltd. vs CIT. Therefore, the learned CIT(A), taking into consideration all aspects, both factual and legal counts, has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee and deleted the impugned disallowance made under Section 14A. Hence, there is no need for any interference. The appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Tags : DISALLOWANCE   DELETION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved