1971 (3) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Interest payable on borrowed capital for the purchase of shares - legal expenses in defending the right to the shares - whether such expenditure are deductible

Summary

Issues:
1. Deductibility of interest on a loan for an asset no longer held by the assessee.
2. Deductibility of legal expenditure incurred in defending a suit relating to an asset no longer held by the assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The first issue revolves around the deductibility of interest on a loan for an asset no longer held by the assessee. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, acquired shares in a company in 1951 but later underwent partial partition, resulting in the shares purchased in 1951 no longer being part of its assets. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction of interest on the loan related to the shares, as they were no longer held by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, stating that the deduction could not be allowed as the interest was only payable and not yet paid. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, disagreed, noting that the shares constituted a distinct source of income. The Tribunal concluded that the interest expenditure was not incurred for the purpose of making or earning income from those shares, leading to the rejection of the assessee's claim for deduction.

2. The second issue pertains to the deductibility of legal expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,970 incurred by the assessee in defending a suit related to the same shares. The suit aimed to set aside an agreement for the sale of shares to the assessee. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed the deduction, stating that the expenditure was related to a family dispute and not connected to income earned by the family. The Tribunal concurred with the earlier decision on interest deduction, emphasizing that the expenditure could not be allowed as it was not incurred for the purpose of earning income from the asset, which was no longer held by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the claim for deduction of the legal expenditure.

In conclusion, both issues raised by the assessee were answered against them. The judgment highlights the importance of the actual source of income in determining the deductibility of expenses and emphasizes that expenditures must be incurred for the purpose of making or earning income from the specific asset. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and precedents related to income sources, expenditure allowances, and the practical application of tax laws in determining deductibility.