2017 (2) TMI 397 - HC - Income Tax

Entitlement to deduction of interest/service charges paid on funds raised to subscribe to the rights issue and for retaining control of 28% of its holding - Held that - Consequently and more fundamentally the interest expenditure in the present case is not of the kind that went into capital stream. The expenditure clearly is not towards acquisition of the capital nor is it an integral part of it, it is only the service alone. It is of a similar kind that would otherwise have been permitted under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Since this expenditure does not pertain to the stream of income covered by Section 37 and is not excluded by Section 57 (3), it had to be and was correctly allowed. - Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest/service charges paid on funds raised to subscribe to the rights issue and for retaining control of 28% of its holding in M/s Shreyans Industries Limited?

Analysis:
1. The case involved the question of whether the assessee, an investment company, was entitled to a deduction of interest/service charges paid on funds raised to subscribe to a rights issue and for retaining control of 28% of its holding in a company. The assessee had reported a loan transaction to fund its subscription to debentures in Shreyans Industries Ltd. The Revenue disallowed the interest paid to LIC Mutual Funds Corporation, claiming it was inadmissible under Section 57 (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. The Revenue contended that the expenditure was to retain control of the shareholding and should be treated as capital expenditure. They relied on judgments from the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court to support their argument. On the other hand, the assessee argued that the Revenue had accepted the nature of the transaction previously and that the interest expenditure should be allowed as a revenue expenditure.

3. The CIT (A) found that the assessee was the de-facto buyer of the debentures and granted relief for the relevant assessment year. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s findings, emphasizing the substance of the agreement with LIC Mutual Fund over its form.

4. The Court analyzed previous judgments cited by the Revenue and concluded that the interest expenditure in the present case was not of a capital nature but akin to a service charge. Unlike cases involving capital raising activities, the expenditure in question did not pertain to the acquisition of capital. Therefore, the interest/service charges were correctly allowed as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.

5. The Court answered the question of law against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, ultimately dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue for the relevant assessment years.