2014 (9) TMI 426 - HC - Income Tax

Interest u/s 43B disallowed - nature of loan - term loan or not - Terms of agreement and character of transaction appreciated or not Held that - The Tribunal rightly held that the loan was for a term - it was secured by a mortgage of the assets and properties of the Assessee borrower does not mean that the clauses or terms and conditions incorporated in the sanction letter can be ignored - the loan was for a term and it was secured in the manner set out by the Deed no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against assessee. Treatment of loan received Term loan or not u/s 43B Held that - It is not in dispute that the Explanation has been brought into force with effect from 1st January 1989 - the Tribunal did not commit any error in relying on the same thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for Assessment Years 1997-98 and 1998-99. Two substantial questions of law raised: (A) Disallowance of interest under section 43B, (B) Classification of loan received as a "term loan" under section 43B.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the disallowance of interest under section 43B. The petitioner argued that the terms of the mortgage deed, not the sanction letter, determined the nature of the loan. The contention was that the liability to clear the amount would arise after four years as per the mortgage deed, not the sanction letter. The High Court examined the Tribunal and Commissioner's findings, concluding that the loan was indeed for a term and secured by a mortgage. The court found no substantial question of law in this regard.

2. The second issue concerns the classification of the loan as a "term loan" under section 43B. The petitioner disputed the applicability of Explanation 3C inserted by the Finance Act 2006, arguing that section 43B(d) was the relevant provision. The High Court analyzed the relevant sections and explanations, noting that Explanation 3C came into force from 1st January 1989. The court upheld the Tribunal's reliance on this explanation, finding no error in its application. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that neither issue raised constituted a substantial question of law. The findings were deemed consistent with the material presented, devoid of legal errors or perversity warranting appellate interference.