9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (10) TMI 481 - HC - Income TaxWhether Interest on FDRs eligible for deduction under 80HHC - AO contended FDRs have been taken in earlier years and renewed in subsequent AYs for their Cash Credit accounts - no nexus with export business - Held That - Order of AO is cryptic and does not give any detail - contention that FDRs have been made out of surplus fund is without any finding - He has not even dealt with and examined the assessee contention that the FDRs were given as security for availing cash credit limit. Such interest has immediate nexus with the export business - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of interest earned on Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Netting of interest for the purpose of computing business income under Section 80HHC. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Treatment of Interest Earned on FDRs The primary issue revolves around whether the interest earned on FDRs should be treated as "profits derived from export activities" and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. The Revenue contended that the interest earned on FDRs should be classified as "income from other sources" and not as business income. This argument was supported by several judicial precedents, including Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, K. Ravindranathan Nair Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip. The court referred to the judgment in Shri Ram Honda Equip, which distinguished between two categories: 1. Interest earned on surplus funds parked in FDRs, which should be treated as "income from other sources." 2. Interest earned on FDRs kept as security for availing credit facilities, which does not have an immediate nexus with the export business and should also be treated as "income from other sources." The court concluded that interest earned on FDRs for the purpose of availing credit facilities from banks does not qualify for deduction under Section 80HHC, as it lacks an immediate nexus with the export business. Issue 2: Netting of Interest for Computing Business Income The second issue pertains to whether the interest earned on FDRs can be netted off against the interest paid on borrowed funds when computing business income for the purpose of Section 80HHC. The court referred to the decision in Shri Ram Honda Equip, which allowed netting of interest if the interest earned on FDRs has a nexus with the export business. The court noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had differing views on this matter. The AO had treated the interest earned on FDRs as income from other sources, while the CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's contention that the interest earned should be netted off against the interest paid to the bank. The CIT(A) concluded that since the FDRs were purchased for business compulsion, the netting of interest should be allowed for computing business profit. The court emphasized the importance of the nexus between the interest earned and the business activity. In the present case, the AO had treated the interest earned on FDRs as business income in the preceding year, and there was no basis to change this treatment for the current assessment year. The court found that the AO's conclusion that the FDRs were made with surplus funds was without basis and contrary to the findings in the preceding year. Conclusion The court held that the interest earned on FDRs, which were kept as security for availing credit facilities, should be treated as business income and not as income from other sources. The court also upheld the netting of interest for computing business income under Section 80HHC, provided there is a nexus between the interest earned and the business activity. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the assessee, with the court answering the question of law against the Revenue. The court emphasized that the findings of the AO and CIT(A) lacked a proper basis and were contrary to the established facts and previous judgments. The appeal was thus dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
