2017 (11) TMI 459 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of income - addition on account of interest on borrowed for acquiring immovable property and issuing directions to adjust the same against the income from other sources - house property of income from other sources - Held that - CIT(A) has rightly held that this is not house property income as contemplated by the Assessing Officer and there is investment in land in the commercial property on which the assessee is getting assured return/interest for his investment of ₹ 6 crores with Omaxe Ltd. Hence, this income has to be treated as income from other sources and the interest paid by him to Reliance Capital should be allowed as expenditure incurred for earning the income u/s 57(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no need to interfere with findings given by the CIT(A). Therefore, the present appeal of revenue needs to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order reducing addition of interest on borrowed funds for acquiring property, Loan purpose, Intention of earning assured return, Allowance of interest deduction, Nature of expenditure, Investment in commercial property, Application of precedent.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the order passed by CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi for A.Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11, reducing the addition of interest on borrowed funds for acquiring immovable property and directing adjustment against income from other sources.

2. The primary contention was regarding the loan taken from Reliance Capital Ltd. and its purpose for earning income from other sources. The CIT(A) held that the intention was to earn assured return from Omaxe Ltd by investing in commercial property, which was disputed by the Revenue.

3. The dispute also involved the allowance of interest deduction under Section 57(3) of the Income Tax Act, as opposed to Section 24(b). The nature of the interest expenditure was debated, whether it constituted revenue or capital expenditure.

4. The CIT(A) was criticized for not applying the precedent set in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd Vs. CIT(1997) 227 ITR 172 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which the Revenue argued was fully applicable in the present case.

5. The ITAT examined the facts where the assessee had availed a loan to earn interest income on an advance made to Omaxe Ltd. The investment in commercial property was for appreciation, but issues arose when Omaxe Ltd failed to pay assured returns, leading to non-payment of EMIs by the assessee to Reliance Capital Ltd.

6. The ITAT analyzed the relationship between interest expenditure on the loan and interest income earned, concluding that the expenditure was directly related to the income earned. Relying on legal precedents, including CIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody, it was determined that the interest payment to Reliance Capital was an allowable expenditure under Section 57(3) for earning income from other sources.

7. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision that the income from the investment in commercial property should be treated as income from other sources. The interest paid to Reliance Capital was allowed as expenditure incurred for earning income, emphasizing the purpose of the expenditure rather than the actual income earned.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the purpose of the expenditure in relation to income earned and applying relevant legal interpretations to allow the interest deduction against income from other sources.