2015 (8) TMI 718 - HC - Income Tax

Interest expenditure incurred in relation to construction of various hotel projects - revenue v/s capital expenditure - Held that - In Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Core Health Care Ltd. 2008 (2) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Explanation 8 of Section 43(1) only applied to provisions like Sections 32, 32A, 33 and 41 which deal with concepts like depreciation. It was observed that Explanation 8 of Section 43 (1) had no relevance to Section 36 (1) (iii). On the facts of that case since the AYs in question were prior to 1st April 2004, the Supreme Court concluded that the proviso to Section 36 (1) (iii) of the Act would not apply. The rationale for allowing the payment of interest on borrowings as revenue expenditure was explained as it does not matter whether the capital is borrowed in order to acquire a revenue asset or a capital asset, because all that the section requires is that the assessee must borrow the capital for the purpose of his business. This dichotomy between the borrowing of a loan and actual application thereof in the purchase of a capital asset, seems to proceed on the basis that a mere transaction of borrowing does not, by itself bring any new asset of enduring nature into existence, and that it is the transaction of investment of the borrowed capital in the purchase of a new asset which brings that asset into existence. The transaction of borrowing is not the same as the transaction of investment. If this dichotomy is kept in mind it becomes clear that the transaction of borrowing attracts the provisions of Section 36 (1) (iii). Thus as far as the present case is concerned, the Respondent Assessee was entitled to claim the payment of interest on the borrowings made in relation to the hotel projects at Srinagar, Goa and Mumbai, which were in the nature of expansion of the business Assessee, as revenue expenditure. - Decided in favour of the Assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Deduction of interest expenditure incurred by the Assessee in relation to construction of hotel projects.
2. Interpretation of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Applicability of Explanation 8 of Section 43(1) of the Act.

Issue 1: Deduction of Interest Expenditure:
The appeal in question pertains to the Assessment Year 2000-2001 and specifically addresses the deduction of interest expenditure incurred by the Assessee in relation to the construction of various hotel projects. The Assessing Officer noted that 75% of the total interest paid on a term loan was capitalized, while the remaining amount was claimed as revenue expenditure. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee, stating that the bifurcation of capital and revenue expenditure by the Assessee was justified. The ITAT also upheld this decision, considering the hotel projects as an expansion of the Assessee's business and allowing the interest paid on loans as revenue expenditure.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 36(1)(iii):
The dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Appellant argued that the Assessee was not entitled to deduction under this section due to Explanation 8 of Section 43(1), which required justification for claiming interest paid as revenue expenditure. However, the Assessee's counsel referred to relevant case laws and highlighted that Section 36(1)(iii) allowed the deduction of interest paid on loans borrowed for business operations, especially for expansion purposes. The Court analyzed the legal position based on precedents and concluded that the Assessee was entitled to treat the interest expenditure on borrowings for hotel projects as revenue expenditure.

Issue 3: Applicability of Explanation 8 of Section 43(1):
The Court examined the applicability of Explanation 8 of Section 43(1) concerning the treatment of interest paid on borrowings for specific assets. By referencing relevant judgments, including Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Core Health Care Ltd., the Court clarified that Explanation 8 did not restrict the deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) for interest paid on borrowings related to business expansion. The Court differentiated between borrowing capital and investing it in assets, emphasizing that borrowing for business purposes qualified for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii). Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Assessee, allowing the interest expenditure on borrowings for hotel projects as revenue expenditure.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment resolved the issues by affirming the Assessee's right to claim interest expenditure on borrowings for hotel projects as revenue expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, rejecting the Revenue's contentions based on Explanation 8 of Section 43(1). The decision was based on a thorough analysis of legal provisions and precedents, ensuring a fair and reasoned outcome in favor of the Assessee.