2008 (8) TMI 766 - SC - Income Tax

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the High Court was right in law in holding that the interest paid for broken period should not be considered as part of the purchase price but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the Year of purchase of securities.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of whether interest paid for broken period should be considered as part of the purchase price or allowed as revenue expenditure in the year of purchase of securities.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court was presented with the issue of whether interest paid for a broken period should be treated as part of the purchase price or considered as revenue expenditure in the year of purchasing securities. The High Court had ruled in favor of the assessee, following its earlier decision in the case of American Express vs. CIT. The revenue had filed special leave petitions which were dismissed on various grounds. The counsel for the assessee argued that previous orders concluded the issue against the revenue. However, the revenue relied on a judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank Ltd. to argue in favor of their position.

The Bombay High Court had distinguished the Vijaya Bank Ltd. case by emphasizing specific details of the securities transaction in question. The Court highlighted that the method of accounting adopted by the assessee did not result in loss of tax revenue for the Department. It was noted that the tax effect was neutral, and therefore, there was no need to interfere with the assessee's method of computation. The Court agreed with the Bombay High Court's view that the judgment in Vijaya Bank Ltd. did not apply to the present case due to similar facts with American Express and neutral tax implications.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The Court agreed that the method of computation adopted by the assessee, which was accepted by the revenue, should not be interfered with. The judgment emphasized the importance of analyzing the specific facts of each case to determine the appropriate tax treatment, as demonstrated by the distinctions made between different cases cited during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the treatment of interest paid for broken periods in securities transactions, emphasizing the significance of specific factual details and the neutral tax effect on the decision-making process. The Court's ruling in this case favored the assessee based on the specific circumstances and the method of computation adopted, as accepted by the revenue.