Interest-free funds, inventory valuation, and depreciation classification shape tax treatment of capital work, vehicles, and software.

Where sufficient interest-free own funds are available, interest disallowance on capital work-in-progress under section 36(1)(iii) is not sustainable because investment may be presumed to come from non-interest-bearing funds. The treatment of unutilized MODVAT/CENVAT balances in closing stock under section 145A depends on the accounting method actually followed and its effect in the profit and loss account, so the issue requires factual verification. Higher depreciation is available on a vehicle covered by the statutory light motor vehicle/commercial vehicle classification, and the express depreciation schedule prevails over common parlance. The same approach applies to computer software, for which the schedule allows higher depreciation without distinguishing between software types.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) on capital work-in-progress was justified when the assessee had sufficient interest-free own funds; (ii) whether unutilized MODVAT/CENVAT balances were required to be included in the value of closing stock under section 145A; (iii) whether higher depreciation was allowable on a vehicle treated by the assessee as a commercial vehicle; and (iv) whether higher depreciation was allowable on computer software.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) on capital work-in-progress was justified when the assessee had sufficient interest-free own funds.

Analysis: The assessee demonstrated availability of substantial non-interest-bearing funds, and those funds were stated to have been used for capital work-in-progress. In such a situation, the presumption that borrowed funds were diverted to capital work-in-progress could not be drawn. The principle that, where both interest-free and interest-bearing funds are available, the source of investment may be presumed to be interest-free funds was applied.

Conclusion: The disallowance of interest was not justified and the Revenue's challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether unutilized MODVAT/CENVAT balances were required to be included in the value of closing stock under section 145A.

Analysis: The controversy turned on the accounting method actually followed by the assessee and the legal effect of section 145A. The authorities below had proceeded on competing views as to whether taxes and duties related to inventory had to be loaded into closing stock, while the assessee relied on judicial guidance that the issue depends upon the method of accounting and the corresponding treatment in the profit and loss account. Since the factual position regarding the accounting treatment needed verification, the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh decision, and the Revenue's appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes on this point.

Issue (iii): Whether higher depreciation was allowable on a vehicle treated by the assessee as a commercial vehicle.

Analysis: The vehicle fell within the definition of light motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act and the relevant depreciation entry treated new commercial vehicles as eligible for higher depreciation. Once the statutory definition covered the vehicle, common parlance could not override the express classification in the depreciation schedule. The requirement was use for business or profession, not use as a hire vehicle.

Conclusion: Higher depreciation was allowable and the Revenue's objection was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether higher depreciation was allowable on computer software.

Analysis: The depreciation schedule specifically allowed higher depreciation on computer software, and the Income-tax Rules did not draw a distinction between system software and application software for that purpose. Accounting standard classification could not prevail over the statutory depreciation schedule.

Conclusion: Higher depreciation on software was allowable and the Revenue's objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue succeeded only on the limited remand relating to section 145A, while the remaining grounds were decided against it.

Ratio Decidendi: Where sufficient interest-free funds are available, a disallowance of interest on the presumption of use of borrowed funds is unsustainable; and depreciation claims must be determined by the express statutory definition and depreciation schedule, not by common parlance or accounting classification.

---