Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 1982 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1982 (4) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Whether the interest paid by the consumer store unit to the banking department is an allowable expense for computing the profit of each department?
2. Whether subclause (i) in clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 80P covers the case of a cooperative society regarding income derived from the business of banking with another department?

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1:
The judgment pertains to a cooperative society engaged in banking and consumer stores businesses. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially allowed interest amounts as expenditure on capital borrowed. However, upon reassessment, the ITO disallowed the expenditure claimed as a deduction on account of interest payment. The Appellate Tribunal reversed the order of the ITO, stating that the society was essentially paying interest to itself, resulting in a double benefit. The High Court analyzed relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and legal precedents. It was held that the interest paid and received by the same entity cannot be considered as an allowable expense as there is no payment from one person to another. The court cited cases like CIT v. B. M. Kharwar and CIT v. A.Suppan Chettiar & Co. to support its decision. Consequently, the court ruled that the interest paid by the consumer store unit to the banking department was not an allowable expense for computing the profit of each department.

Issue 2:
Regarding the applicability of subclause (i) of clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 80P to the cooperative society's income derived from banking with another department, the court held that the language of section 80P indicates that interest income needs to be computed first to be deducted. Since there was no interest income in this case, the deduction under subclause (i) did not apply. The court referred to the specific language of the statute to support its decision. Consequently, the court answered question 2 in the negative, stating that subclause (i) of clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 80P did not cover the cooperative society's case regarding income derived from banking with another department.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision, denying the allowance of interest payment as an expense and ruling against the applicability of subclause (i) of clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 80P in the cooperative society's case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates