9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of whether interest paid to the Government on kist amounts beyond a specific date is penal or compensatory in nature for deduction as business expenditure under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala involved a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deductibility of interest paid to the Government on kist amounts under the Abkari Act. The Tribunal questioned whether the interest paid beyond a certain date was penal or compensatory in nature for deduction as business expenditure under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment years in question were 1978-79 and 1979-80, with the relevant accounting periods ending on March 31, 1978, and March 31, 1979. The assessee, an abkari contractor, defaulted in prompt payment of kist amounts, leading to the accrual of interest. The Income Tax Officer allowed deduction only for interest up to the 20th of each month, considering interest beyond that date as penal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal, however, allowed deduction for the entire interest amount, including that paid after the 20th. The Revenue contended that interest beyond the 20th was penal in nature due to potential consequences like license cancellation or shop resale for defaults after that date. The High Court referred to a previous case, CIT v. T. M. Chacko and Partners, which held that interest paid up to the 20th of each month was compensatory and deductible as business expenditure. The court analyzed the nature of interest payments under the Abkari Act and the Rules, emphasizing that default in payment did not constitute an infraction of law but was a breach of the agreement terms. The court highlighted that the interest, whether before or after the 20th, was compensatory and necessary for the business purpose. The court differentiated between penal consequences and coercive actions for defaults, concluding that interest paid for delayed kist amounts was compensatory and deductible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. Furthermore, the court referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. v. CIT and Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT to establish the principles for determining whether interest payments were compensatory or penal in nature. The court clarified that interest accruing on delayed payments was compensatory, aimed at compensating for the loss due to deprivation of money use. It emphasized that the interest payable under the Abkari Act was primarily civil in nature, not penal, and thus deductible as business expenditure. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the interest paid on delayed kist amounts was compensatory and deductible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act.
|
