1986 (1) TMI 85 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of interest u/s 214 for the assessment year 1971-72.
2. Deduction of repaid interest u/s 37 for the assessment year 1973-74.
3. Inclusion of interest on U.P. Zamindari Bonds.
4. Deduction of expenditure on Visiting Officers' Quarters u/r 6C.

Summary:

Issue 1: Assessment of Interest u/s 214 for the Assessment Year 1971-72
The Tribunal held that the interest of Rs. 5,75,264 received by the assessee should be reduced by Rs. 2,10,264, which was later repaid. The court disagreed, stating that the entire sum received as interest should be treated as income for the assessment year 1971-72, as the Act does not provide for treating the same otherwise based on later events. The court concluded that the Tribunal's view was incorrect and answered the question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue.

Issue 2: Deduction of Repaid Interest u/s 37 for the Assessment Year 1973-74
The assessee claimed the repaid interest of Rs. 2,10,264 as a deduction u/s 37, which was initially rejected by the authorities. The court held that the repaid amount was not a tax on income but an involuntary payment, thus falling within the purview of section 37. The court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the assessee.

Issue 3: Inclusion of Interest on U.P. Zamindari Bonds
The court referred to a previous decision in I.T.R.C. Nos. 162 and 163 of 1975, which involved the same parties and issue. Following the same reasoning, the court answered the question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue.

Issue 4: Deduction of Expenditure on Visiting Officers' Quarters u/r 6C
The court referred to the Division Bench ruling in N.G.E.F. Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 153 ITR 197, holding that the language of section 37(4) of the Act was not materially different before or after April 1, 1972. Thus, the court answered the question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue.

Final Answers:
1. I.T.R.C. Nos. 189 & 190 of 1978
- Question No. (1): In the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
- Question No. (2): The Tribunal should have held that the portion of the annual repayment representing interest was assessable to tax, while the portion representing capital was not.
- Question No. (3): In the affirmative, against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue.

2. I.T.R.C. No. 273 of 1985
- Question No. (1): In the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

The court directed the parties to bear their own costs due to the divided success and failure.