2016 (1) TMI 228 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement for the deduction u/s 24(1)(vi) - as per revenue the borrowed capital was not utilized for acquisition renewal repair construction or reconstruction of the property which had been let out but had utilized for acquiring entire equity share holding of the company so as to transfer the control and management of the company - ITAT allowed the claim - Held that - The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) had wrongly adjudicated that since the assessee had not borrowed the amount for acquiring the property it was not entitled to deduction under Section 24 (1)(vi) of the Act. Once it is held that the assessee had borrowed the amount for acquiring the property as a necessary corollary it is held that the assessee had rightly been allowed deduction of 10, 00, 000/- by the Tribunal as interest paid thereon under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act. The judgment in Sunil Kumar Sharma s case (2002 (2) TMI 91 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court ) supported the case of the assessee wherein it was held that the interest portion of the installment of the purchase price of let out property was allowable as deduction under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 24(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction of interest on borrowed capital.
2. Whether the borrowed capital was utilized for acquiring the property in question.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 24(1)(vi)
The appeal was filed by the revenue challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deduction under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act for the assessment year 1997-98. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the disallowance of deduction made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. The key contention was whether the interest on the borrowed capital was deductible under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction, emphasizing the direct nexus between the loan liability and the acquisition of the property. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant clauses of the agreement, establishing that the borrowed funds were utilized for acquiring the property, thus fulfilling the conditions of Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act.

Issue 2: Utilization of Borrowed Capital
The main dispute revolved around whether the borrowed capital was used for acquiring the property in question. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had disallowed the deduction on the grounds that the loan was not utilized for the purchase or construction of the property. However, the Tribunal overturned this decision, highlighting the agreements that demonstrated the connection between the loan liability and the acquisition of the property. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the fact that the loan liability was undertaken for acquiring the property of the company, and the interest paid on the borrowed capital was directly linked to the property in question. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee qualified for the deduction under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The judgment in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sunil Kumar Sharma was cited to support the allowance of the interest portion of the installment of the purchase price of the let-out property as a deduction under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act. The Court emphasized the importance of the direct nexus between the borrowed capital, the property acquisition, and the interest liability paid by the assessee in determining the eligibility for the deduction.