2010 (6) TMI 598 - AT - Income Tax

Interest earned on deployment of surplus funds assessed under the head Income from other sources- assessee reducing such income from capital work in progress- assessee treating such income to be business income & claiming revenue expenditure against it- Held that -Assessee company was in the process of establishing research and training institute which was under construction and since no allied activities were carried out by the assessee company, the company has not commenced its business and, therefore accordingly, there cannot be any question of assessment of its income as income from business. At the same time, it does not mean that until the company commences its business, income from other sources will not be taxed. See Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd vs CIT (1997 - TMI - 5601 - Supreme Court). However, while treating the income as income from other sources the AO should also consider the expenses incurred for the purpose of earning such income and allow the same u/s 57 of the IT Act. Income from other sources could be deductible from the project cost, when these items were directly related to the execution of contract for successful completion of the project. See CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd.(1998 - TMI - 5705 - Supreme Court) Further, revenue expenditure cannot be allowed as business expenditure unless the business has commenced. - Decided against the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Commencement of Business
2. Classification of Income
3. Allowability of Expenses

Detailed Analysis:

1. Commencement of Business:
The primary issue was whether the appellant had commenced its business activities. The appellant argued that the business had commenced with the construction of the training institute, while the AO and CIT(A) held that business had not commenced as the institute was still under construction and no allied activities had started. The Tribunal upheld the view that the business had not commenced, stating, "the company has not commenced its business and, therefore, accordingly, there cannot be any question of assessment of its income as income from business."

2. Classification of Income:
The second issue was the classification of interest income earned on surplus funds. The appellant contended that the interest income should be adjusted against the project cost, citing the judgments in CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd., CIT v. Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., and CIT v. Karnataka Power Corpn. The AO and CIT(A) classified the interest income as "Income from other sources" based on the Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. judgment, which the Tribunal affirmed. The Tribunal noted, "interest earned by the assessee company was to be charged under the head 'Income from other sources'." The Tribunal distinguished the cited cases, emphasizing that the income in those cases was directly linked to the execution of the project, unlike the present case.

3. Allowability of Expenses:
The third issue was the allowability of expenses incurred by the appellant. The appellant argued that if the interest income was treated as revenue, the related revenue expenses should be deductible. The CIT(A) agreed that expenses incurred to earn the interest income should be allowed under section 57 of the IT Act. The Tribunal supported this view, stating, "while treating the income as 'Income from other sources' the AO should also consider the expenses incurred for the purpose of earning such income and allow the same under section 57 of the IT Act."

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the decisions of the AO and CIT(A) that the business had not commenced, the interest income should be classified as "Income from other sources," and only expenses directly related to earning that income should be allowed under section 57. The Tribunal's findings were based on the principles established in Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. and distinguished from the cases cited by the appellant.

← Previous Next →