1997 (7) TMI 56 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Taxation of interest income as "income from other sources."
2. Adjustment of interest income against the cost of assets.
3. Deduction of letter of credit charges and interest on overdraft from interest income.
4. Eligibility for exemption u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Taxation of Interest Income as "Income from Other Sources"
The Tribunal held that the interest of Rs. 1,60,778 and Rs. 2,23,500 for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, respectively, was to be taxed as "income from other sources." The assessee's argument that the interest income should be treated as "business income" was rejected, as the business had not commenced and the activities were at a pre-operative stage.

Issue 2: Adjustment of Interest Income Against the Cost of Assets
The Tribunal's decision that the interest earned should not reduce the cost of the assets was contested. The court concluded that the interest income earned by the assessee was directly relatable to the activity of acquiring an asset from a supplier. Since the deposits were made to open a letter of credit for acquiring machinery, the interest income should go to reduce the cost of the asset. Thus, questions Nos. 1 and 2 were answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue 3: Deduction of Letter of Credit Charges and Interest on Overdraft from Interest Income
The court examined whether the expenses for opening a letter of credit and interest on overdraft should be deducted from the interest income. It was held that these expenditures were not incurred to earn the interest income and thus were not deductible u/s 57 of the Act. Consequently, question No. 3 was answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favor of the Department.

Issue 4: Eligibility for Exemption u/s 80P(2)(c)
The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 20,000 u/s 80P(2)(c), which was withdrawn by the Commissioner and upheld by the Tribunal. Since the business had not commenced, the pre-operative activities did not qualify for the deduction. Therefore, question No. 4 was answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favor of the Department.