2014 (5) TMI 782 - HC - Income Tax

Conversion of interest into loan not 'actually paid' for deduction under section 43B.

Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-III Versus Strescon Industries Ltd.

The High Court of Calcutta ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the conversion of interest into a loan does not qualify as 'actually paid' under ... Restriction u/s 43B - conversion of interest amount into loan - actually paid or deemed paid - retrospective effect of amendment - Held that:- The explanation which was sought to be pressed into service by the Revenue was introduced by the Finance Bill, 1999 and the Bill expressly stated that the Explanation would be operative with effect from 1st April, 2000 - Relying upon Eicher Motors Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2006 (7) TMI 201 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT]- the question was whether in spite of the clarification in the Bill itself, the Explanation could be applied with retrospective effect - Explanation 3C added to section 43B has specifically been made retrospective with effect from 1st April, 1989 - It is not possible to hold that Explanation 3C would nonetheless apply prospectively as contended by the assessee – Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues: Interpretation of section 43B - Whether conversion of interest into loan qualifies as actual payment for deduction under section 43B.Analysis:The High Court of Calcutta considered the interpretation of section 43B in the context of whether the conversion of interest into a loan could be deemed as actual payment for the purpose of claiming a deduction under the said section. The Revenue/Appellant relied on a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, emphasizing the significance of Explanation 3C added to section 43B with retrospective effect from April 1, 1989. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the legislative intent behind Explanation 3C was crucial in determining the applicability of the provision. The Court noted that any legislative change with retrospective effect must be considered during the pendency of a case and cannot be ignored. The Court concluded that Explanation 3C clarified that the conversion of interest into a loan would not be considered as 'actually paid' under section 43B, thereby ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.In response, the Assessee's counsel referred to a judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of Sedco Forex International Drill Inc & Ors., highlighting the principle that the law applicable to the relevant assessment year should prevail unless expressly provided otherwise. The counsel pointed out that an Explanation to a statutory provision may either clarify ambiguity or widen the scope of the main section, and its retrospective application depends on whether it changes the law or merely clarifies it. However, the Court distinguished this case from the one at hand by noting that Explanation 3C to section 43B was explicitly made retrospective from April 1, 1989. Therefore, the Court rejected the contention that Explanation 3C should be applied prospectively and ruled in favor of the Revenue, setting aside the order under challenge.In summary, the Calcutta High Court's judgment delved into the interpretation of section 43B concerning the treatment of interest conversion into a loan for deduction purposes. The Court considered the impact of Explanation 3C, which clarified that such conversion does not amount to actual payment under section 43B. By analyzing precedents and legislative intent, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the retrospective application of Explanation 3C from April 1, 1989, and its decisive role in resolving the dispute at hand.