2008 (4) TMI 270 - HC - Income Tax

Temporary use of the borrowed funds by investing and earning interest according to the Tribunal was not an investment of a nature which would bring the interest income under the head income from other sources - decision of the Tribunal on the above point is correct - whether Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses incurred for raising public issue is revenue expenditure in nature - matter be listed again for further hearing on this question

Summary

Issues:
1. Depreciation on machinery parts costing less than Rs. 5000 each.
2. Deletion of brokerage expenditure.
3. Treatment of interest income from 'bridge loan'.
4. Expenses incurred for raising public issue as revenue expenditure.

Depreciation on Machinery Parts:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow 100% depreciation on machinery parts costing less than Rs. 5000 individually, even though the total cost was Rs. 2,35,710 in the relevant year. The Court found the Tribunal's decision justified and stated that no error was committed on this issue.

Deletion of Brokerage Expenditure:
The Court referred to a previous decision in favor of the assessee, stating that the Tribunal's deletion of Rs. 5,725 on account of brokerage expenditure relating to an earlier year was justified. The issue was concluded in favor of the assessee and against the department based on the precedent set by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. case.

Treatment of Interest Income from 'Bridge Loan':
Regarding the interest income from a 'bridge loan', the Court analyzed the nature of the borrowed funds and the temporary investment made by the assessee. The Tribunal classified the interest income under 'business income' instead of 'income from other sources'. The Court supported the Tribunal's decision, citing relevant case laws, including the Keshavji case and the Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals case, to justify the treatment of the interest income.

Expenses Incurred for Raising Public Issue:
The Court initially intended to decide in favor of the assessee, considering the law declared by the Supreme Court. However, upon further review of the General Insurance Corporation case, the Court decided to list the matter for further hearing. The issue pertains to whether expenses incurred for raising a public issue should be treated as revenue expenditure, with the Court acknowledging the need for additional examination based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the General Insurance Corporation case.