9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Treatment of interest paid on borrowed funds for the acquisition of machinery as revenue expenditure under section 36(1)(iii). 2. Interpretation of Explanation 8 to section 43(1) regarding the capitalization of interest in the actual cost of assets. 3. Application of judicial precedents in determining the deductibility of interest paid on borrowed capital for the extension of existing business. Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal concerned the treatment of interest paid on borrowed funds for acquiring machinery as revenue expenditure under section 36(1)(iii). The Assessing Officer added the interest amount to the actual cost of the asset, disallowing it as a revenue expenditure. The CIT(Appeals) upheld this decision, citing Explanation 8 to section 43(1) which states that interest paid in connection with the acquisition of an asset is to be treated as part of the actual cost of the asset. The assessee argued that the interest should be allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii) based on various judicial precedents. Issue 2: The interpretation of Explanation 8 to section 43(1) was crucial in this case. The Tribunal analyzed the legislative intent behind the insertion of Explanation 8 by the Finance Act, 1986. The Explanation clarified that interest paid after an asset is put to use should not be included in the actual cost of the asset. The Tribunal held that interest paid before the asset's use should also not be included in the actual cost, contrary to the Assessing Officer's implication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a strict interpretation of tax statutes without room for implication. Issue 3: The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents cited by the assessee to support the deduction of interest paid on borrowed capital for the extension of existing business. References to Supreme Court and High Court judgments were made to argue for the deductibility of interest under section 36(1)(iii). The Tribunal highlighted the relevance of these precedents in determining the allowability of interest as a revenue expenditure, emphasizing the need to follow clear statutory language and established legal principles in tax matters. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, disagreeing with the lower authorities' decision to capitalize the interest amount under Explanation 8 to section 43(1). The judgment underscored the importance of statutory interpretation, legislative intent, and judicial precedents in resolving issues related to the treatment of interest paid on borrowed funds in the context of business expenditures and actual cost calculations for assets.
|
