Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Sunil Bardia, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (10 Oct 2023)

Expenditure could not be denied merely because there was no income earned during the relevant Assessment Year

MANU/RD/0232/2023

Direct Taxation

Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowing part of interest expense claimed under section 57 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) amounting to Rs.5,58,088 and the learned CIT(A) upheld the same.

The assessee had interest income as well as interest expenditure and such transactions of income and expenditure were revealed by the assessee under the head income from other sources. The issue is squarely covered by the order of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody wherein it is specifically held that, how expenditure which is otherwise a proper expenditure can cease to be such merely because there is no receipt of income. Whatever is a proper outgoing by way of expenditure must be debited irrespective of whether there is receipt of income or not. That is the plain requirement of proper accounting, and the interpretation of Section 57(iii) cannot be different. The deduction of the expenditure cannot, in the circumstances, be held to be conditional upon the making or earning of the income.

In view of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court, since, in the present case, there was income earned by the assessee by way of interest, however, the same was not equal to the percentage of interest in terms of interest expenditure incurred but the same could not be a reason to disqualify certain expenditure within the provision of Section 57(iii) of the Act, when the Apex Court, has held that, the expenditure could not be denied merely because there was no income earned during the relevant A.Y. Expenditure incurred by the assessee, genuineness of which was not disputed by the A.O are allowable expenditure in terms of provisions of Section 57(iii), thus, addition made by the A.O and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) are not sustainable.

The order of Learned CIT(A) is set aside and the A.O is directed to delete the addition made under Section 57(iii) of the IT Act. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   ADDITION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved