2015 (2) TMI 809 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of interest payments - whether assessee entitled to deduct the interest paid on the loans borrowed by it, in its profit and loss account? - Held that - matter needs to be examined by the Tribunal with reference to the relevant record, duly giving opportunity to both the parties. Expenditure on construction of building - whether meant for its commercial use, partakes of the character of revenue expenditure and deductible from the income ? - Tribunal allowed claim of revenue expenditure - Held that - Tribunal has simply concurred with the view expressed by the Commissioner just by taking into account, the claim made by the respondent for the assessment year 1982-83 and the fact that the cost of construction incurred by it be treated as revenue expenditure was accepted. Beyond that, no discussion whatever was undertaken. Things would have been different in case the Commissioner has undertaken any discussion with reference to the relevant provisions of law and the facts pleaded by the parties. The purport of Explanation 1 to section 36 of the Act was not discussed at all. It was obligatory on the part of the Commissioner, or for that matter, the Tribunal, to examine whether the building in question was owned by the respondent or was taken on lease and whether the construction undertaken by it was permanent or semi- permanent in nature. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deduction of interest paid on loans borrowed by the respondent.
2. Treatment of the sum spent by the respondent for construction of rooms.

Analysis:
1. Deduction of Interest Paid on Loans:
The respondent, a hotel establishment, claimed benefits under the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction of Rs. 3,00,000 as revenue expenditure, considering it capital expenditure. Additionally, the Officer denied the exemption from interest payment on the loan borrowed, stating that the amount was passed to a sister concern. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeals, but the Revenue challenged them before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, leading to further litigation. The key contention was whether the borrowed funds were diverted for non-commercial purposes, affecting the deduction eligibility. The Tribunal's decision lacked thorough examination and verification, prompting a remand for fresh consideration.

2. Treatment of Construction Expenditure:
The second issue pertained to the treatment of Rs. 3,00,000 spent by the respondent on construction. The Tribunal upheld the expenditure as revenue based on the Commissioner's decision for the assessment year 1982-83. However, the lack of detailed discussion on the nature of the construction and ownership status of the building raised concerns. The Tribunal's decision was deemed insufficient as it failed to analyze the relevant provisions of law and factual contentions. The Court emphasized the need for a detailed examination to determine the permanency of the construction and ownership status, directing the Tribunal to reevaluate the matter after providing both parties with an opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the High Court remanded the appeals to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration of both issues, emphasizing the importance of thorough examination and detailed analysis in determining the eligibility for deduction of interest paid on loans and the treatment of construction expenditure.