9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act regarding deduction of interest paid by the assessee for capital borrowed for business purposes. Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act concerning the deduction of interest paid by the assessee on capital borrowed for business purposes. The assessee, a private limited company, borrowed funds from individuals at varying interest rates and claimed deductions under section 10(2)(iii) for interest paid to four ladies at 6? per cent. per annum. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a portion of the claimed interest, stating it was not on business considerations. The Tribunal's Judicial Member accepted the claim, emphasizing the genuine nature of the borrowing transactions and the utilization of funds in the business. However, the Accountant Member upheld the disallowance, questioning the reasonableness of the interest rate claimed. The President of the Tribunal concurred with the Accountant Member, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of section 10(2)(iii) for the deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed for business purposes. The court highlighted that the provision did not subject the interest paid to a reasonableness test, unlike other clauses in section 10(2). Citing the decision of the Madras High Court, it was established that in cases of genuine business borrowings, the department could not disallow interest based on the rate being unreasonably high. The court emphasized that if the borrowing transactions were genuine and the capital was borrowed for business purposes, the department had no jurisdiction to determine a reasonable interest amount for deduction under section 10(2)(iii). The court noted that the genuineness of the borrowings and the utilization of funds in the business were undisputed in this case. The contention that the interest rate of 6? per cent. was unreasonably high was the primary dispute. It was clarified that the department could not scale down the interest amount based on reasonableness once the genuineness of the borrowings was established. The court rejected the department's argument that the funds obtained were not "capital borrowed," as this contention was not raised before the taxing authorities or the Tribunal. The court emphasized that the department could not introduce new arguments at this stage, especially when the genuineness of the borrowings was accepted throughout the proceedings. In conclusion, the court answered the reference question in the negative, affirming that the department could not disallow any part of the interest on genuine business borrowings on the grounds of unreasonably high rates. The assessee was awarded costs, and the court clarified that new arguments could not be raised at this stage if not previously addressed before the taxing authorities or the Tribunal.
|
