2017 (1) TMI 1439 - HC - Income Tax

Claim for deduction of interest - Held that - Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee s claim for deduction of interest was allowable in full as on the same issues between the same parties for Assessment Year 1990-91, Revenue has conceded the matter in favour of Assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenged common judgment on substantial questions of law under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to deduction of interest, applicability of previous judgments, and machinery repair expenses.

Analysis:
1. The appeals stemmed from a common judgment challenging different assessment years but involving similar substantial questions of law. The issues included the deductibility of interest, applicability of specific judgments, and the direction to allow machinery repair expenses.

2. The Revenue-appellant's advocate argued the case, and the court examined the record thoroughly.

3. The substantial questions of law revolved around the deduction of interest, applicability of specific judgments like CIT Vs. Saraya Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd., and the direction to allow machinery repair expenses. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Assessee's inability to disprove the use of borrowed funds for non-business purposes.

4. The dispute pertained to the Assessment Year 1995-96, where the Assessee, a partnership firm engaged in civil engineering, construction work, and share dealing, filed its return of income. The Assessment Order assessed total income, including long-term capital gains. The Assessee appealed before the CIT(A), who partially allowed the appeal. The Revenue then appealed before the Tribunal, challenging the relief granted by the CIT(A) regarding interest charged. However, the Tribunal found in favor of the Assessee based on a previous judgment, concluding that the issue was already determined for an earlier assessment year.

5. The court analyzed the applicability of previous judgments like CIT Vs. Saraya Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. and CIT Vs. H.R. Sugar Factory P. Ltd. in the current case. It found that the decisions were not applicable to the present scenario, as the facts of those cases differed significantly from the current case.

6. Regarding the third question on machinery repair expenses, the court noted that this issue was not raised before the Tribunal, and therefore, it could not be entertained for the first time on appeal. As a result, the court left this question unanswered.

7. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that it correctly addressed the substantial questions of law against the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.