Interest on Borrowed Capital: Own Funds vs. Interest-Bearing Loans (Section 36(1)(iii))

Presumption of Own Funds for Business Advances

The Facts: For AY 2017-18, the assessee had an outstanding advance of Rs. 80 lakhs given to A.M. Enterprises. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed interest of Rs. 9.60 lakhs (calculated at 12%) under Section 36(1)(iii), assuming that interest-bearing borrowed capital was diverted for non-business interest-free advances.
The Evidence: The assessee proved that it possessed sufficient interest-free “own funds” to cover the advance. Furthermore, Rs. 35 lakhs of the advance was actually recovered during the year, leaving a balance of Rs. 45 lakhs.
The Decision: The Tribunal held that where an assessee has mixed funds (both own and borrowed), the presumption is that the interest-free advances are made out of the interest-free “own funds” available. The partial recovery of the loan further proved the genuineness of the transaction.
Result: Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted.

TDS on Training Expense Reimbursements (Section 40(a)(ia) / 194C)

Reimbursement of Expenses Not Liable for TDS

The Facts: The assessee, an automobile dealer, paid Rs. 2.45 lakhs to Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. as reimbursement for training expenses incurred for sales and workshop staff. The AO disallowed 30% of this amount (Rs. 0.74 lakhs) under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) under Section 194C.
The Evidence: The assessee established that these were pure reimbursements of expenses without any profit element or a specific “work contract” between the dealer and the manufacturer for training services.
The Decision: Training of staff is an integral part of the automobile dealership business. Since the payments were mere reimbursements and part of the business operations, no TDS was required.
Result: Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.

Difference in Receipts: Books vs. Form 26AS (Section 68)

Reconciliation of Book Turnover and TDS Statements

The Facts: The AO made an addition to the assessee’s income due to a discrepancy between the turnover reported in the books/ITR and the receipts reflected in Form 26AS.
The Evidence: The assessee maintained a consistent method of accounting that had been accepted in previous years. It was explained that differences often arise due to:
- Discounts/Vatav Kasar provided to customers.
- Debit/Credit Notes issued for returns or price adjustments.
- Timing differences where entries span across different financial years.
The Decision: The AO cannot make a blind addition based on Form 26AS without considering the commercial realities of the business. Since the method of accounting was consistent and the differences were explained by standard business practices (discounts/notes), the addition was unjustified.
Result: Addition under Section 68 was deleted.

IN THE ITAT SURAT BENCH ‘DB’

Mega Automobiles (P.) Ltd.

ACIT^*

DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President
and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

IT Appeal No. 988 (Srt) of 2024
[Assessment year 2017-18]

MARCH 16, 2026

Mehul Shah, C.A. for the Appellant. Ajay Jay Uke, Sr . D.R. for the Respondent.

ORDER

Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member.- This is an appeal filed against the order dated 24-07-2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

“1 . On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the action of the AO in making disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 9,60,000/- (12% of 80,00,000/-) on account of proportionate interest @ 12% on loans and advances even though no loans were advanced by the assessee in the year under consideration.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in making disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting to Rs. 73,605/-(30% of Rs. 2,45,350/-) on account of non-deduction of TDS by the assessee on training expenses.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the matter to the file of AO by contravening the provisions of Section 251(1)(a).

4. It is therefore prayed that above additions/disallowances made by the assessing officer and confirmed by learned CIT(A) may please be deleted.

5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Other grounds of appeal

“1 . The Ld CIT (A) has erred in giving direction to AO in regard to addition of Rs. 2,73,258/- on account of alleged difference in income as per ITR and Form 36.

2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in giving direction to AO in regard to addition of Rs. 30,83,831/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act even though no expense was claimed by assessee in respect of such payment.”

3. The assessee filed return of income on 28-10-2017 declaring total income at Rs. 51,51,994/-. The Assessing Officer made following disallowances/additions:

Disallowance of interest of Rs. 9,60,000/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.

Addition of Rs. 2,73,258/- on account of difference between the amounts appearing in the 26AS statement of the appellant vis-a-vis that reflected in its Profit and Loss Account.

Rs. 30,83,831/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act, on account of expenditure incurred in cash.

Disallowance of Rs. 73,605/- being 30% of Rs. 2,45,350/-, made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax at source on payment made to Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

The total addition made by the Assessing Officer is Rs. 43,90,694/-.

4. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5. The ld. A.R. submitted that as regards the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs. 9,60,000/- on account of proportionate interest at 12% on loans and advances, the ld. A.R. submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee was having opening balance of loans and advances given to A.M. Enterprises amounting to Rs. 80 lacs out of which assessee received back Rs. 35 lacs from A.M. Enterprise in the year and the balance of Rs. 45 lacs. The said loan was given out of interest free funds. The assessee has stated that the said loan was given out of interest from assets available with the company and without looking into the balance the company, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the said claim.

6. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that that the assessee was having its own funds and is clearly reflected in the opening balance and the closing balance. In fact, the assessee has received back Rs. 35 lacs in the current assessment year which shows that the loan was genuinely given and it was from the interest free fund only. Therefore, the disallowance u/s. 36(i)(ii) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is not justifiable. Thus, ground no. 1 is allowed.

8. As regards to ground no. 2 related to disallowance u/s. 10(a)(ia) of the Act of Rs. 73,650/-, 30% of 2,45,336/- on account of non-deduction of TDS by the assessee. The assessee has submitted all the ledger accounts of the expenses including that of development expenses, training expenses and communication expenses, the assessee has given detailed related to the said expenses. These expense incurred by M&M was taken as reimbursement from the assessee company for providing training to sales and workshops staff of the assessee company. There was no separate contract and therefore section 194C will not come into picture as per the contentions of the ld. A.R.

9. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee was having the preliminary business of selling vehicles and the assessee company is a dealer for Mahindra Cars and the expenses incurred related to the training of sales and workshop staff of the assessee company is a part and parcel of the said business itself. Therefore, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the At is not justified. Hence, ground no. 2 is allowed.

11. As regards ground no. 3, the addition of Rs. 2,73,258/- on account of difference in income as per ITR, the ld. A.R. submitted that the method and manner of maintenance of the books of accounts was maintained throughout the years and no discrepancy was found by the Assessing Officer and anything of the previous assessment years. The ld. A.R. submitted that the difference in ITR and Form 26AS cannot be taken into account as the income is recognized for a particular period for one year on the basis of the method employed by assessee and it cannot be possible all the time to co-relate specific amount of TDS with a specific amount of income earned by any assessee in a particular assessment year.

12. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

13. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the difference which was pointed out by the Assessing Officer related to Income Tax Return and Form 26AS. The Assessing Officer overlooked the fact that the difference may arise due to entries for discount/debit-note/credit note spanning across different years. The method of maintenance of books of accounts of the assessee was not changed and the same was accepted by the Assessing Officer. There is a difference arising due to discount, vatav kasar etc. arising in the course of business and therefore the difference in receipt as per TDS certificate and the Form 26AS and the taxable income offered by the assessee is a mere negligible difference and hence the same should have been granted by the Assessing Officer.

14. As regards the component of addition of Rs. 30,83,831/-u/s. 40A(3) of the Act being RTO charges reimbursed by the assessee, the assessee has explained these expenses. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. Ground no. 3 in respect of addition of Rs. 2,73,258 and Rs. 30,83,831/- is allowed.

15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.