2009 (6) TMI 331 - HC - Income Tax

Interest on capital borrowed for investment in shares - Deduction is claimed by him of the interest amount paid on the borrowed loans. The amounts borrowed by the appellant were invested in shares and dividend is earned - that dividend income is exempted under section 10(33) of the Act from the tax liability and the same cannot be computed for income under the head Other sources . Exempted income is not allowable for deduction in view of section 14A of the Act. In view of these two provisions, the claim of the assessee is wholly untenable

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of interest on amounts borrowed for purchase of shares.
2. Applicability of Supreme Court decisions on interest deduction.
3. Opportunity of hearing before deciding the issue.
4. Justification of Tribunal's decision based on applicable law.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Deduction of interest on amounts borrowed for purchase of shares
The appellant claimed deduction of interest on amounts borrowed for purchasing shares. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, stating that the dividend income earned from the shares cannot be excluded when claiming the interest deduction. The assessing authority relied on the provisions of section 10(33) and section 14A of the Income-tax Act to disallow the claim, as dividend income is exempted under section 10(33) and expenditure related to exempted income is not allowable under section 14A. The Tribunal upheld the assessing authority's decision, emphasizing that the claim for interest deduction was untenable due to the specific provisions of the Act. The court agreed with the assessing authority and the Tribunal, dismissing the appellant's claim for interest deduction.

Issue 2: Applicability of Supreme Court decisions on interest deduction
The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 to support the deduction of interest on borrowed amounts for share investment. However, the assessing authority and the Tribunal found that this decision was not applicable to the current case due to the changes in the law introduced by section 10(33) and section 14A of the Income-tax Act. The court concurred with the assessing authority and the Tribunal, holding that the Supreme Court decision cited by the appellant did not apply to the facts of the case.

Issue 3: Opportunity of hearing before deciding the issue
The appellant raised concerns about not being afforded an opportunity of hearing before the Tribunal decided on the issue, especially when relying on judgments not cited by either side. However, the court did not find merit in this argument and proceeded to analyze the case based on the orders passed by the assessing authority, the first appellate authority, and the Tribunal.

Issue 4: Justification of Tribunal's decision based on applicable law
The first appellate authority had reversed the assessing authority's decision based on the Rajendra Prasad Moody case, which was found inapplicable due to subsequent changes in the law. The Tribunal correctly set aside the first appellate authority's decision, considering the provisions of section 10(33) and section 14A of the Act. The court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the appellant's claim was not tenable under the current legal framework. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the assessing authority and the Tribunal.