Court allows deduction for interest on borrowed money invested in shares under Section 57(iii)

The court ruled in favor of the appellant/assessee, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Tribunal's decision. It held that the deduction for interest on money borrowed for investment in shares is admissible under Section 57(iii) regardless of whether the shares yielded dividends. The court determined that the shares were acquired for the purpose of making or earning income, not solely for acquiring control over the company. The court emphasized that the motive behind the expenditure is irrelevant as long as the purpose is income generation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of deduction for interest on money borrowed for investment in shares that did not yield any dividend.
2. Justification of the Tribunal's decision that shares were purchased to acquire controlling interest and hence not allowable for deduction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of deduction for interest on money borrowed for investment in shares that did not yield any dividend:

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not clarified that she was in the business of dealing in shares and that unless proven, it was difficult to accept that the shares were purchased for making or earning income. However, the court clarified that the deduction under Section 57(iii) is not limited to those dealing in shares as a business. The court emphasized that the purpose of the expenditure is relevant, not the actual earning of income. The court cited Supreme Court judgments in Eastern Investments Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal-III vs. Rajendra Prasad Moody, which held that it is not necessary for the expenditure to result in income for it to be deductible. The court concluded that the lack of dividend does not indicate that the expenditure was not for making or earning income, thus answering the first question of law in favor of the appellant/assessee.

2. Justification of the Tribunal's decision that shares were purchased to acquire controlling interest and hence not allowable for deduction:

The Tribunal and CIT (A) had concluded that the assessee's real intention was to acquire control over the company, not to earn income. The court distinguished between the purpose of expenditure and the motive behind it, emphasizing that if the expenditure is for making or earning income, the motive is irrelevant. The court referred to several judgments, including Ormerods (India) Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Seth R. Dalmia vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, which supported the view that the purpose of expenditure should be considered separately from the motive.

The court analyzed the facts, noting that the assessee acquired about 28% of the shares, and there was no indication that the acquisition was for control purposes. The court found that the Tribunal's conclusion was based on the entire shareholding being held by the appellant's group and the lack of dividend declaration. However, these factors alone did not justify the conclusion that the shares were acquired for control. The court also referred to judgments in CIT vs. Model Manufacturing Co. (P) Ltd. and Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, which differentiated between the purpose of earning income and acquiring control.

The court concluded that the acquisition of shares was for the purpose of making or earning income, and the incidental acquisition of control did not change this purpose. Thus, the second question of law was also answered in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:

The court answered both questions of law in favor of the appellant/assessee, allowing the appeal and setting aside the Tribunal's order. The court held that the interest on money borrowed for investment in shares is an admissible deduction under Section 57(iii) and that the shares were not purchased solely for acquiring control of the company.

---