Supreme Court clarifies deduction rules for interest on borrowed money for share investment under Income Tax Act

The Supreme Court addressed the conflict in High Courts' decisions on the admissibility of interest on borrowed money for share investment under s. 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It held that such expenditure must be incurred wholly and exclusively for income purposes, irrespective of actual income earned. The Court rejected the revenue's argument linking deduction to income generation in a specific year, emphasizing the legislative intent and accounting principles. Aligning with multiple High Courts, it allowed the deduction and ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the revenue to bear the costs.

---

---

Issues:
Conflict in decisions of High Courts regarding the admissibility of interest on borrowed money for investment in shares under s. 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the conflict in decisions of High Courts on whether interest on money borrowed for investment in shares, not yielding any dividend, is admissible under s. 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court highlighted that the expenditure under s. 57(iii) must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income, without the condition that income must be actually earned. This interpretation was supported by the earlier decision in Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 1. The Court rejected the revenue's argument that expenditure under s. 57(iii) should only be deductible if income is made or earned, emphasizing that the purpose of the expenditure is crucial, not the actual income earned.

The Court also dismissed the revenue's contention that expenditure would only qualify for deduction if income resulted from it in a particular assessment year. It reasoned that the legislative intent could not have been to produce illogical outcomes where even a small income would allow deduction, but no income would lead to disqualification of expenditure. The Court emphasized that proper accounting principles dictate that allowable expenditure should be debited regardless of income receipt, as reflected in the profit and loss account process.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the language of s. 57(iii) is clear and unambiguous, requiring a plain natural interpretation without narrowing its scope based on other sections with slightly wider phraseology. The Court cited Lord Thankerton's observations in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand [1938] 6 ITR 636, supporting the deduction of unremunerative expenditure if made wholly and exclusively for the trade's purposes, without requiring a corresponding receipt on the credit side.

The Court aligned with the views of various High Courts, including Madras, Bombay, Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, and Orissa, which upheld the interpretation that expenditure under s. 57(iii) should be deductible if laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for making or earning income, regardless of actual income earned. Conversely, the Court deemed the contrary views of the Patna and Calcutta High Courts to be incorrect. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that interest on borrowed money for investment in shares, not yielding any dividend, is admissible under s. 57(iii), and directed the revenue to pay the costs of both references to the assessee.

---