It is evident from the above that the issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was not whether the presumpt ion theory would apply or not where there are mixed funds and the assessee had demonstrated avai lability of sufficient own funds for making the investments . No discussion on this aspect has also been done by the Hon’ble Apex Court and merely not ing that the assessee had ut i l ized mixed funds, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the principle of apport ionment would apply. Wi thout any discussion or del iberat ion on the presumpt ion theory, the proposi t ion laid down in the case of Avon Cycles Ltd. (supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court has to be restricted to the extent of the issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court and facts before i t and not beyond that . And on that basis the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Avon Cycles Ltd. (supra) can be read only to the extent of upholding the principle of apport ionment of expenses incurred in the context of the l imi ted fact of mixed funds avai lable wi th assessee and no further. The proposi t ion laid down cannot be stretched even logical ly to address the fact si tuat ion where suf f icient own interest free funds are avai lable wi th assessee, which fact was not there before the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Avon Cycles (supra) , and to negate the presumpt ion that the own funds were used for making the investment , which was nei ther the quest ion raised before the apex court and therefore not addressed by i t also.
On a perusal of section 41(1), it is evident that it is a sine qua non that there should be an allowance or deduction claimed by the assessee in any assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee. Then, subsequently, during any previous year, if the creditor remits or waives any such liability, then the assessee is liable to pay tax under Section 41 of the IT Act. The objective behind this Section is simple. It is made to ensure that the assessee does not get away with a double benefit once by way of deduction and another by not being taxed on the benefit received by him in the later year with reference to deduction allowed earlier in case of remission of such liability
Once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. It further held that no businessman can be compelled to maximize his profit and that the income tax authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the assessee and see how a prudent businessman would act. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but that of a prudent businessman
The judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana vs. M/s Abhishek Industries, Ludhiana  286 ITR 1 (P&H) does not deal with the question of the rate of interest to be applied in cases where the assessee has mixed funds available with it. We also agree with the Tribunal’s view that where mixed funds are diverted towards interest free advances the disallowance should be made up to the level of the average cost of debt to the assessee. There is no justification in taking into consideration the rate of interest in respect of any particular transaction where under an assessee avails advances on interest. An assessee may avail several advances from the same lender or from different lenders and at varying rates of interest. In the absence of anything to indicate that the interest free advance was made only from a particular corresponding advance received by the assessee, the advance made by the assessee would obviously be from the common pool of money. Money lying in a common pool has no identity. The various amounts advanced to the assessee get merged into a common pool. There is no justification then either for the assessee or for the department to take into consideration the rate of interest in respect of a particular advance or advances to the assessee. The only logical approach is to take into consideration the average interest rate at which the assessee has availed of the advances
U/s 36(1)(iii) when the interest was actually incurred by the assessee, which follows the mercantile system of accounting, the assessee would be entitled to deduction of full amount in the assessment year in which it is paid. The High Court wrongly applied the “Matching Concept” to deny the deduction of the upfront interest payment in the first year.