TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court ruling on interest paid for capital assets, remands partial depreciation issue.</h1> <h3>JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD.</h3> JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD. - [2008] 299 ITR 9 (SC) Issues:1. Whether interest paid on borrowings for capital assets not put to use can be allowed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961Rs.2. Whether the assessee had the legal option to claim partial depreciation on a block of assetsRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The Supreme Court, in this judgment, addressed the first issue concerning the allowance of interest paid on borrowings for capital assets not put to use. The Court referred to a previous decision in the case of Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Ahmedabad v. M/s. Core Health Care Ltd., where a similar issue was decided in favor of the assessee against the Department. The Court, therefore, answered the first question in favor of the assessee and against the Department.Issue 2:The second issue in question was whether the respondent-assessee had the legal option to claim partial depreciation on a block of assets. The Court noted that the High Court had relied on a judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahendra Mills & Anr., which allowed the assessee to claim depreciation. However, the Court highlighted that Section 34(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been omitted from 1.4.88. As a result, the Court remanded the matter back to the High Court, setting aside the previous order, to consider whether the assessee indeed had the legal option to claim partial depreciation on a block of assets. The Court emphasized the importance of determining the applicability of the judgment in the case of Mahendra Mills to the assessment years under consideration, considering the changes in the relevant provisions. The Court directed the High Court to also examine the scope of Explanation 5 to Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2001.In conclusion, the Supreme Court answered the first question in favor of the assessee and remitted the second question back to the High Court for further consideration. As a result, the Department's civil appeal was partly allowed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 