2008 (2) TMI 8 - SC - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of interest paid on borrowings for capital assets not put to use under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Allowability of advertisement expenses as revenue expenditure.
3. Deduction under Section 35D regarding short-term loans.
4. Deduction under Sections 80-HH and 80-I on miscellaneous income from the sale of empty containers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowability of Interest on Borrowings for Capital Assets Not Put to Use:
The primary question for determination was whether interest paid on borrowings for capital assets not put to use in the financial year could be allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Department argued that the interest should not be treated as revenue expenditure, citing Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) of the Act. However, the court held that Section 36(1)(iii) does not distinguish between capital borrowed for a revenue asset or a capital asset. The section requires only that the capital must be borrowed for business purposes. The court emphasized that the term "actual cost" in Section 43(1) pertains to sections dealing with depreciation and not to Section 36(1)(iii). Thus, Explanation 8 to Section 43(1) was deemed irrelevant to the context of Section 36(1)(iii). The court concluded that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was not justified in disallowing the interest amount of Rs.1,56,76,000/-, and the question was answered in favor of the assessee.

2. Advertisement Expenses as Revenue Expenditure:
The Department contended that advertisement expenses incurred to create a brand image with enduring benefits should not be allowed as revenue expenditure. The High Court had dismissed the Department's application to amend its Memo of Appeal to include this substantial question of law. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in dismissing the application without addressing the substantial question of law. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.

3. Deduction Under Section 35D Regarding Short-term Loans:
The Department argued that the Tribunal erred in granting a deduction under Section 35D for short-term loans, given that the Explanation to Section 35D(3) refers only to long-term borrowings. The High Court had dismissed the Department's application to amend its Memo of Appeal to include this issue. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have considered this substantial question of law and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

4. Deduction Under Sections 80-HH and 80-I on Miscellaneous Income:
The Department contended that the Tribunal erred in directing deductions under Sections 80-HH and 80-I on miscellaneous income from the sale of empty containers. The High Court had dismissed the Department's application to amend its Memo of Appeal to include this issue. The Supreme Court found that this was a substantial question of law and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the A.O. was not justified in disallowing the interest on borrowings used for purchasing machinery, answering the primary question in favor of the assessee. The court also found that the High Court erred in dismissing the Department's applications to amend its Memo of Appeal to include substantial questions of law regarding advertisement expenses, deductions under Section 35D, and deductions under Sections 80-HH and 80-I. These issues were remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. The civil appeals were partly allowed with no order as to costs.