9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of interest paid on borrowed amounts for purchasing shares as business expenditure. 2. Allowability of interest paid as a deduction against income from other sources u/s 57 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Allowability of Interest as Business Expenditure The assessee, Model Manufacturing Co. (P.) Ltd., purchased shares in the New City of Bombay Manufacturing Co. Ltd. using borrowed funds. The ITO disallowed the deduction of interest paid on these borrowed amounts, concluding that the shares were purchased to acquire controlling interest in the Bombay company for the Kanorias, the directors of the assessee, and not for dealing or investment purposes. This decision was upheld by the AAC, who also rejected the claim that the interest should be allowed against dividend income, stating that the assessee was merely a channel for acquiring control of the Bombay company. Issue 2: Allowability of Interest Against Income from Other Sources u/s 57 The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the interest paid on the borrowed amounts should be allowed as a deduction against income from other sources u/s 57 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that the expectation of dividend income was implicit in the nature of the investment, and thus, the interest paid was a legitimate deductible expense against dividend income. The Tribunal found that the assessee had other dividend income in the relevant assessment years and allowed the deduction of the interest paid against such income. Legal Precedents and Arguments: - The revenue cited several cases, including CIT v. Sir Homi M. Mehta [1943] 11 ITR 142 (Bom), Indian Steamship Co. Ltd v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 448 (Cal), and Madanlal Sohanlal v. CIT [1963] 47 ITR 1 (Cal), to argue that the interest paid should not be allowed as a deduction since the shares did not yield any dividend income. - The assessee countered by citing Ormerods (India) P. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 329 (Bom) and Seth R. Dalmia v. CIT [1977] 110 ITR 644 (SC), arguing that the purpose of acquiring the shares was to earn income from dividends, and thus, the interest paid should be deductible. Court's Conclusion: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the finding that the shares were acquired by way of investment and not as stock-in-trade was not challenged. The court distinguished between motive and purpose, concluding that even if the ultimate motive was to acquire control of the Bombay company, the immediate purpose was to earn income from dividends. Therefore, the interest paid on the borrowed amounts was allowable as a deduction against income from other sources u/s 57 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question referred was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
|
