Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interest paid on borrowings used for household expenses, purchase of jewellery, and payment of advance tax was expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning income from fixed deposits under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The allowable deduction under section 12(2) is confined to expenditure, not being capital in nature, incurred solely for earning the relevant income. The essential test is whether there is a real nexus, direct or indirect, between the expenditure and the earning of the income. Borrowings taken for household expenses or for purchasing jewellery had no connection with the fixed-deposit income, and the assessee's choice to borrow rather than withdraw funds did not convert a personal outlay into expenditure for earning income. As to advance tax, the borrowing was to discharge a statutory liability, and any interest received on the advance tax payment was merely incidental. The expenditure was therefore not on the ground of commercial expediency and did not facilitate the earning of the income.
Conclusion: The claim for deduction was not allowable under section 12(2); the question referred was answered in the negative.