1996 (7) TMI 176 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants interest deduction under section 57(iii) for income from other sources

Off Shore India Limited. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

The tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the assessee is entitled to the interest deduction under section 57(iii) while computing income from other ... Accounting Year, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, From Other Sources, Interest Liability, Previous Year Issues:1. Disallowance of interest claimed by the assessee under the head 'Other sources'.2. Proper section applicable for claiming interest deduction.3. Consideration of motive vs. purpose in acquiring shares for investment.4. Allowability of interest deduction based on the purpose of earning income.5. Applicability of relevant legal precedents supporting the claim of the assessee.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of interest claimed by the assessee under the head 'Other sources'. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the interest liability, considering it was incurred for non-business purposes, leading to the dispute. The CIT(A) upheld the decision of the ITO, setting the stage for the appeal before the tribunal.2. The tribunal examined the proper section applicable for claiming interest deduction and highlighted the mistake made by the ITO in referring to section 36(1)(iii) instead of the correct section, which is section 57(iii). Section 57(iii) allows any expenditure laid out for the purpose of earning income under 'Other sources'. The tribunal emphasized the distinction between sections for computing business income and income from other sources, clarifying the correct provision applicable to the claim of interest.3. The tribunal delved into the aspect of motive versus purpose in acquiring shares for investment. It emphasized that the motive of the assessee in acquiring shares, such as to have a controlling interest, is irrelevant when judging the allowability of interest payment on borrowings. Legal precedents were cited to support this stance, highlighting the importance of the purpose of earning income from investments rather than the motive behind the acquisition.4. Furthermore, the tribunal addressed the issue of the investment in shares not yielding any dividend during the relevant accounting year. Citing the judgment in CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody, the tribunal clarified that the lack of income from shares in a specific year does not impact the allowability of interest under section 57(iii). The tribunal emphasized that the key condition for interest deduction is that it should be incurred for the purpose of earning income, irrespective of the immediate yield from investments.5. Legal precedents such as India Cements Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. Indian Bank Ltd., and CIT v. Rajeeva Lochan Kanoria were referenced to support the claim of the assessee. However, the tribunal concluded that the proper provision applicable to the interest claim is section 57(iii) and not section 36(1)(iii), rendering detailed consideration of these arguments unnecessary for the appeal's decision.In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the assessee is entitled to the interest deduction under section 57(iii) while computing income from other sources. The tribunal rejected the reasons provided by the income-tax authorities for disallowing the interest and emphasized the importance of the purpose of earning income in determining the allowability of interest payments on borrowings.