2020 (5) TMI 80 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gain computation - Non-grant of deduction of interest expenditure as part of cost of construction while computing capital gains u/s 48 - HELD THAT - There is a consistent view among various Hon ble High Courts and which has been consistently followed by the various Benches of the Tribunal that the assessee is entitled to include interest as part of the cost of the assets while computing the capital gains u/s 48 of the Act. In the absence of any contrary authority brought to our notice, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the interest expenses paid to LIC Housing Finance Ltd. subject to appropriate indexation while computing capital gains u/s 48. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Non-grant of deduction of interest expenditure as part of cost of construction while computing capital gains U/s 48 of the IT Act.

Analysis:

1. Background: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur for the assessment years 2010-11. The primary issue under consideration was the non-grant of deduction of interest expenditure as part of the cost of construction while calculating capital gains under Section 48 of the IT Act.

2. Assessee's Submission: The assessee was allotted a flat in Jaipur and incurred interest expenses during the loan tenure, which were capitalized. No deduction under Section 24(b) was claimed in the ITRs filed for the relevant years. The assessee contended that the interest and other expenses should be considered as part of the cost of the capital asset for computing capital gains.

3. AO and CIT(A) Findings: The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of interest and other expenses, stating that such payments are not allowable expenses under the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A) upheld this view, asserting that the expenses were not related to the cost of construction of the asset.

4. Legal Precedents: The assessee argued that interest forms part of the cost of capital assets, citing various cases where interest paid on loans for acquiring capital assets was considered eligible as part of the cost of acquisition. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Gayatri Maheshwari vs. ITO had also held that interest paid by the assessee constitutes the actual cost for the property.

5. Judgment: After considering the contentions of both parties and legal precedents, the Tribunal reversed the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and held that the interest paid to the bank for acquiring the capital asset should be eligible as part of the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the interest expenses paid to LIC Housing Finance Ltd. while computing capital gains under Section 48 of the Act.

6. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the consistent view among various High Courts and Tribunal Benches that interest can be included as part of the cost of assets for computing capital gains. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering interest expenses in determining the actual cost of the property, especially when purchased using borrowed funds.

This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the judgment, including the arguments presented by the parties, the findings of the authorities, relevant legal precedents, and the final decision of the Tribunal.