2009 (2) TMI 32 - HC - Income Tax

Interest earned on monies received as share capital by the assessee which were temporarily put in a fixed deposit awaiting acquisition of land - assessee claim that the interest was in the nature of capital receipt which was liable to be set off against pre-operative expenses, is acceptable - funds infused in the assessee by the joint venture partner were inextricably linked with the setting up of the plant, so the interest earned could not be treated as income from other sources

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of interest earned on monies received as share capital by the assessee.
2. Whether interest accrued on funds deployed with the bank could be taxed as income from other sources or as a capital receipt liable to be set off against pre-operative expenses.

Issue 1: Treatment of interest earned on monies received as share capital by the assessee:

The case involved appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the only issue was the treatment of interest earned on monies received as share capital by the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated the interest as "income from other sources," while the CIT(A) accepted the stand of the assessee that the interest was a capital receipt to be set off against pre-operative expenses. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision, citing similarities with a Supreme Court judgment. The main question was whether the interest should be taxed as income from other sources or as a capital receipt.

Issue 2: Taxation of interest accrued on funds deployed with the bank:

The primary consideration was whether the interest accrued on funds deployed with the bank could be taxed as income from other sources or as a capital receipt set off against pre-operative expenses. The case involved funds temporarily put in a fixed deposit due to legal entanglements regarding land acquisition. The CIT(A) found that the interest earned was linked to the setting up of a power plant and should be treated as a capital receipt. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating the deposit of share capital had no significant connection to the plant's establishment.

Analysis:

The High Court analyzed the case in light of relevant Supreme Court judgments, particularly Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd vs CIT and CIT vs Bokaro Steel Ltd. The Court emphasized the importance of determining whether the funds and activities were inextricably linked to setting up the business. It noted that income connected to business activities should not be classified as income from other sources. The Court highlighted the distinction between surplus funds and funds directly linked to business purposes.

Furthermore, the Court examined Section 208 of the Companies Act, 1956, which allows for the payment of interest on share capital for specific purposes related to construction or plant provision. Drawing parallels, the Court concluded that interest earned on funds brought in as share capital for a specific purpose should be capitalized. The Court rejected the Tribunal's application of the Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals judgment, stating that the interest earned by the assessee, in this case, was not income from other sources but a capital receipt linked to business activities.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the Tribunal misdirected itself by applying the Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals judgment. Based on the finding that the funds were inextricably linked to setting up the plant, the interest earned could not be treated as income from other sources. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeals and setting aside the Tribunal's judgment.