9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 1,15,01,460 made by the Assessing Officer being the amount of premium paid by the assessee on redemption of debentures. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 37 of the Act for the premium paid on redemption of debentures. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Premium Paid on Redemption of Debentures: The primary issue in these cross appeals is the disallowance of Rs. 1,15,01,460 made by the Assessing Officer, which was the amount of premium paid by the assessee on the redemption of debentures. The assessee, a company engaged in the business of leasing plant and machinery and making long-term investments, issued zero percent interest debentures to raise funds. These debentures were redeemed by paying a premium, which the assessee claimed as a business expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim on three grounds: 1. The investment in debentures was not a business activity as the income from the sale of debentures was shown under 'Capital gains'. 2. There was no actual payment at the time of redemption, only journal entries were passed. 3. The transactions were considered a colorable device to reduce tax liability as all involved companies were promoted by the Essar Group. 2. Entitlement to Deduction Under Section 37 of the Act: The CIT(A) allowed the deduction under section 37(1) but remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-computation of the disallowance, directing verification of the appellant's claim regarding the redemption premium. The revenue challenged the allowability of the deduction under section 37, while the assessee contested the directions given by the CIT(A). The Tribunal examined whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 37 of the Act for the premium paid on redemption of debentures. The Tribunal referenced its decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1997-98, where it was held that the assessee was engaged in the business of holding long-term investments. However, it was pointed out that income from such investments was considered under the head 'Capital gains' and not under 'Profits and gains from business or profession'. Legal Precedents and Tribunal's Rationale: The Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of Kankhal Investments & Trading Co. (P.) Ltd., which established that deductions under sections 30 to 43D cannot be claimed if the income from the business receipt is to be computed under a specific head other than 'Profits and gains from business or profession'. The Tribunal cited: - United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT, where the Supreme Court held that income from 'interest on securities' falls under section 8 and not under section 10, even if held by a banker as part of trading assets. - East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT, which reinforced that distinct heads of income are mutually exclusive and income derived from different sources must be computed under the appropriate head. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's receipts and the connected expenditure must be considered under one head. Since the income from the sale of investments was considered under 'Capital gains', the deduction under section 37 could not be allowed. The Tribunal further clarified that the commercial principles have always been applied by courts in computing business profits and losses, and the existence of receipts is a condition precedent for claiming deductions under section 37. Final Judgment: The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction under section 37 of the Act for the premium paid on redemption of debentures, as the income from the business receipts was considered under the head 'Capital gains'. The order of the CIT(A) was reversed, and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was restored. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed, and the appeal of the revenue was allowed.
|
