9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 451 - HC - Income TaxMethod of accounting - valuation of stock - question of law or fact - Held that - Revenue was not able to show that the inventories were acquired out of borrowings and interest was to be capitalized keeping in view AS-16, issued by ICAI - following the decision of the Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LIMITED 1990 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT , itself the Apex Court has indicted what is profit or trade or business and how it is to be ascertained and the questions analogous to the same, as involved in the present appeal, are essentially questions of fact - thus here no question of law is involved and we are only called upon to adjudicate the questions of fact, the appeal cannot be entertained and the same is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of interest paid on loans 2. Interpretation of accounting standards 3. Question of law vs. question of fact Issue 1: Disallowance of interest paid on loans The Respondent-Assessee, engaged in development and construction of residential buildings, filed a return of income for a specific year, which was scrutinized by the Assessing Officer. The assessment under Section 143(3) resulted in a higher total income due to the addition of interest expenditure and sponsorship expenses to the returned income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the Respondent-Assessee, confirming a partial disallowance of interest paid on loans. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the loans were utilized for various purposes beyond construction alone. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to prove that inventories were acquired through borrowings and interest should be capitalized as per accounting standards. Issue 2: Interpretation of accounting standards The Appellant argued that the Tribunal overlooked the purpose of the loan taken by the Assessee for construction activities. The Appellant cited the decision in CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. to support their position. However, the Court examined the applicability of accounting standards, specifically Section 145(2) of the Income-tax Act. The Respondent's Counsel referenced the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India to highlight the relevance of accounting standards in determining taxable income. The Court emphasized that factual findings by the authorities were crucial in assessing questions related to profit or business, as indicated in previous judgments. The Court concluded that no question of law arose in this case, and the appeal was dismissed. Issue 3: Question of law vs. question of fact The Court reviewed the orders of the Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal. It noted that the findings regarding work in progress and commercial expediency were factual issues. The Court highlighted that the scope of appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act pertains to pure questions of fact based on evidence. As no question of law was identified, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need to focus on adjudicating factual matters rather than legal interpretations. This judgment clarifies the application of accounting standards in determining taxable income, emphasizing the importance of factual findings in tax assessments. The Court's analysis underscores the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact, guiding future appeals on similar grounds.
|
