2013 (5) TMI 19 - AT - Income Tax

Interest paid to HSIDC on installment of plot which was yet to be put to use - whether is of capital nature? - Held that - As from the plain reading of section 36 it is clearly established that interest on loan taken for acquisition of such assets which are acquired by the assessee for extension of its existing business are not allowable till they are put to use. In the present case, there is no doubt and there is no dispute regarding the fact that assets were not put to use. Therefore, in AO had rightly made the disallowances and Ld CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the same. Assessee s reliance on Capital Bus Service v. CIT, New Delhi 1980 (2) TMI 69 - DELHI High Court , India Cements Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras 1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME Court & Bombay Steam Navigation Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1964 (10) TMI 12 - SUPREME Court were misconceived as the all are altogether on different facts. In favour of revenue. Disallowance of processing charges - Held that - They are allowable business expenditure which were incurred by the assessee during the course of business. The nature of expenses is similar to expenses as incurred in the case of India Cement Ltd. V. CIT (1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME Court) as relied upon by the assessee. In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Classification of interest paid to HSIDC as capital in nature.
2. Classification of interest paid on building term loan as capital in nature.
3. Treatment of processing charges as capital expenditure.

Issue 1: Classification of interest paid to HSIDC as capital in nature

The appellant challenged the lower authorities' decision to treat the interest paid to HSIDC as capital in nature, amounting to Rs.15,19,372. The Assessing Officer observed that the interest pertained to land on which factory construction had begun and was shown under capital work in progress. The appellant argued that the interest was incurred to further its business at new premises, making it allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their claim. However, the Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, stating that interest on loans for assets not yet put to use is not allowable as a deduction. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal.

Issue 2: Classification of interest paid on building term loan as capital in nature

The appellant contested the classification of Rs.2,21,034 as interest paid on a building term loan as capital in nature. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount, considering the loan disbursed for the construction of the factory building as capital expenditure. The appellant argued that the loan amount was utilized from profits and working capital, making the interest a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal, however, agreed with the Assessing Officer, stating that interest on loans for assets not yet put to use cannot be claimed as a deduction. Therefore, this ground of appeal was also dismissed.

Issue 3: Treatment of processing charges as capital expenditure

The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.48,250 as processing charges incurred on a term loan for the construction of the factory, considering it as a capital expenditure. The appellant argued that these charges were incurred during the course of business and should be treated as revenue expenditure, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that processing charges were of revenue nature and hence allowable. Therefore, this ground of appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, dismissing the first two issues related to the classification of interest payments as capital in nature but allowing the third issue regarding the treatment of processing charges as revenue expenditure.