2014 (12) TMI 520 - HC - Income Tax

Interest paid on funds borrowed for purchase of shares deductible u/s 36(1)(iii) or not Legal and professional charges incurred for rehabilitation - Shares purchased of a BIFR Company Held that - CIT(A) was of the view that the decision in Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT 1979 (4) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court it was rightly held that at the time of allowing interest u/s 36 of the IT Act, 1961, three conditions are required to be seen for allowing deduction in respect of the borrowed funds for the purpose of business, i.e. Capital should be borrowed by the assessee, it must be borrowed for the purpose of business and interest must have been paid assessee company has fulfilled all the three conditions assessee has incurred interest expenditure in respect of unsecured loan taken from a body corporate and have been utilised for the purpose of acquisition of shares of India Polyfibres Ltd on which no dividend has been received - the expenditure relatable to such an investment is allowable business expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) - However, the Tribunal, while considering the appeal has not given cogent reasons and has summarily allowed the appeal - since no details reasons are given by the Tribunal, thus, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deductibility of interest paid on funds borrowed for purchasing shares of a BIFR company under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Treatment of legal and professional charges incurred for rehabilitation and revival of a BIFR company as expenditure on revenue account under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Deductibility of Interest Paid on Funds Borrowed for Purchasing Shares:
The appellant challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deductibility of interest paid on funds borrowed for purchasing shares of a BIFR company. The Tribunal held that such interest was not deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal based its decision on the nature of the company whose shares were acquired, stating that the intention was not to carry on business but to acquire the company through BIFR. The appellant argued citing relevant clauses and legal provisions, including Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 37. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision to support their claim for deduction of interest. The respondent contended that the Tribunal's decision was justified, referring to Section 43 and a Bombay High Court case. The CIT(A) provided detailed reasoning, citing legal precedents and conditions for allowing deduction of interest for borrowed funds for business purposes. The CIT(A) concluded that the appellant had fulfilled the necessary conditions and that the interest expenditure was allowable as a business expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii). However, the High Court found that the Tribunal's decision lacked detailed reasoning and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, quashing the Tribunal's order.

Issue 2: Treatment of Legal and Professional Charges for Rehabilitation and Revival:
The second issue involved the treatment of legal and professional charges amounting to Rs. 7,81,000 incurred for the rehabilitation and revival of the BIFR company. The Tribunal held that these charges were not expenditure on revenue account and were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose of the assessee. The CIT(A) provided detailed reasoning, citing legal precedents and conditions for allowing such expenditures as business expenses. The CIT(A) concluded that the charges were allowable as business expenditure under the Income-tax Act, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted. However, the High Court, while remitting the first issue back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, did not provide specific details regarding the treatment of these charges in its judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed the issues of deductibility of interest paid on funds borrowed for purchasing shares and the treatment of legal and professional charges for rehabilitation and revival of a BIFR company. While the deductibility of interest was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration due to lack of detailed reasoning, the treatment of charges was not specifically addressed in the High Court's judgment.