2014 (12) TMI 722 - HC - Income Tax

Court affirms Tribunal's decision on interest payments, ruling for respondent-assessee over appellant-revenue.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus HARISHBHAI J. LAKHANI

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to confirm the CIT(A)'s order regarding interest payments made by the assessee, ruling in favor of the ... Interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) - Whether the Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s.36(1)(iii) by the AO on account of interest expenditure – Held that:- Interest expenditure was disallowed mainly on the ground that the interest payment was not made in respect of capital borrowed during the course of business – assessee was under contractual obligation to make payments to the companies and it formed part of the costs of purchase of shares - interest paid for the debt incurred or paid as obligation under any agreement is allowable as expenditure - assessee was dealing in shares and that he had made interest payments to M/s. Arora Corporation and M/s. Rushabh Capital and Finance Ltd. - interest expenditure is allowable u/s 37(1) if the same is not covered by Section 36(1)(iii) and rightly held that the disallowance of interest expenditure to the extent by AO was bad in law and the Tribunal committed no error of law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against revenue. Issues:Challenge to order of ITAT regarding interest payments made by the assessee during the assessment years.Analysis:The appellant-revenue challenged the ITAT's order regarding interest payments made by the assessee to two companies during the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The AO disallowed the interest expenditure, alleging that the assessee had made no borrowings and had willfully debited huge amounts as interest payments to reduce profit margins. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, leading to the appellant-revenue approaching the Tribunal. The main issue was whether the interest expenditure of Rs. 23,89,500/- made by the assessee was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.The appellant's counsel argued that there were no borrowings by the assessee, and therefore, no interest payments should have been made. It was contended that the interest payments were intentionally debited to reduce profit margins. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel supported the orders of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, stating that the appeals lacked merit. The respondent relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the deductibility of interest payments as business expenditure.After considering the arguments and examining the record, the Court observed that the respondent was under a contractual obligation to make payments to the companies, which were part of the costs of purchasing shares. The Court noted that interest paid for debt incurred or as an obligation under any agreement is allowable as expenditure. Section 36(iii) allows interest paid on capital borrowed for business purposes, while Section 37(1) covers other interest payments. As the respondent was dealing in shares and had made interest payments to specific companies, the Court held that the interest expenditure was allowable under Section 37(1) and not covered by Section 36(1)(iii). Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure by the AO was deemed unlawful, and the Tribunal's decision to confirm the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.Conclusively, the Court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant-revenue, dismissing the appeal as meritless and without costs.