2007 (5) TMI 128 - HC - Income Tax

AO contended that (i) Interest paid by assessee on borrowed fund not allowable as business expenditure (ii) Provision of Section 145(2) were attracted (iii) Depreciation and repair expenses not allowed as business expenditure Held that AO contention was not correct and allowed all the appeal of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of interest of Rs. 1,58,01,118.
2. Applicability of section 145(2) in relation to receipts from hiring of machineries.
3. Consideration of surplus arising out of amalgamation of shares.
4. Allowance of expenditure on machinery repairs.
5. Allowance of depreciation and repairs for standby tippers and recovery van.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction of Interest of Rs. 1,58,01,118:
The Tribunal justified the deduction of interest paid by the assessee on borrowings, which were used to repay old borrowings rather than for personal withdrawals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee firm, a sub-contractor, had substantial business activities and investments, which justified the borrowings. The Tribunal emphasized that the borrowings were used for business purposes, and the interest paid was thus allowable under the law. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the principle that business decisions should be viewed from the perspective of a businessman. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in S. A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals), which allows interest paid on expenditure incurred for commercial expediency.

2. Applicability of Section 145(2) in Relation to Receipts from Hiring of Machineries:
The Tribunal found that the receipts from hiring machineries were accurately recorded in the assessee's account books and confirmed by the hirer's records. No discrepancies were found in the payments, leading the Tribunal to conclude that section 145(2) was not applicable. The High Court agreed, stating that the income should be assessed based on the actual receipts disclosed by the assessee.

3. Consideration of Surplus Arising Out of Amalgamation of Shares:
The Tribunal addressed the surplus arising from the amalgamation of shares, noting that the assessee had credited the surplus to the partners' accounts. The Tribunal found that the partners' withdrawals were justified and that the interest on borrowings was for business purposes. The High Court considered this issue as part of the first question and found no separate significance.

4. Allowance of Expenditure on Machinery Repairs:
The Tribunal directed the allowance of the entire expenditure on machinery repairs, noting that the responsibility for major repairs lay with the assessee, not the hirer. The Tribunal clarified that the hirers were only responsible for minor repairs, as per the agreement. The High Court upheld this decision, confirming that the expenditure on major repairs was an allowable deduction.

5. Allowance of Depreciation and Repairs for Standby Tippers and Recovery Van:
The Tribunal allowed depreciation and repair expenses for the standby tippers and recovery van, reasoning that these vehicles were kept ready for use in case of emergencies or breakdowns. The High Court agreed, stating that depreciation and repairs were admissible for vehicles provided as standby under the terms of the agreement.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered all the questions in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, confirming the Tribunal's findings and allowing the deductions and expenses claimed by the assessee.

← Previous Next →