1982 (6) TMI 152 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms interest deduction but denies carry forward of special reserve under Section 36(1)(viii).

INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPN. LTD.

INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPN. LTD. - TTJ 016, 417, Issues Involved:1. Deductibility of interest, guarantee commission, and commitment charges.2. Allowance of special reserve under Section 36(1)(viii).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deductibility of Interest, Guarantee Commission, and Commitment Charges:The primary issue is whether the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the interest, guarantee commission, and commitment charges paid by the assessee were deductible in computing the income. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim based on a prior order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The Tribunal, following its earlier decision, affirmed the CIT(A)'s view, confirming that the interest, guarantee commission, and commitment charges were indeed deductible.2. Allowance of Special Reserve Under Section 36(1)(viii):The second issue pertains to the allowance of a special reserve created by the assessee-company, a financial corporation engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial concerns in Tamil Nadu. The assessee initially filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 13,74,464, which was later revised to Rs. 8,17,372, including a claim under Section 36(1)(viii) for the allowance of a special reserve amounting to Rs. 17,75,000. The ITO disallowed this without providing reasons, merely stating that he was implementing the orders of the IAC. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of Rs. 19,49,820, noting that the overall reserve created by the assessee covered the special reserve in full.The Tribunal examined Section 36(1)(viii), which allows deductions for any special reserve created by a financial corporation engaged in providing long-term finance for industrial or agricultural development in India. The section specifies different percentages for different types of financial corporations. The assessee argued that excess reserves created in previous years should be available to make up for shortfalls in the current year. However, the Tribunal noted that the section's language implies that the reserve must be created out of the total income of the year in which the claim is made, not from previous years' reserves.The Tribunal referenced the case of CIT vs. Aruna Sugars Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 619 (Mad), where it was held that the creation of a reserve must be out of the profits of the relevant previous year, and the presence of a larger reserve in earlier years does not satisfy this requirement. The Tribunal concluded that the reserve must be created and carried to the reserve account each year, and not be carried forward from previous years.Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 1970, had inserted an Explanation allowing for the carry forward of excess reserves to make up for deficiencies in subsequent years, but this Explanation was omitted by the Finance Act, 1974, effective from the assessment year 1975-76 onwards. Therefore, the benefit of carrying forward excess reserves was no longer available.In conclusion, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s view and held that the ITO's restriction of the claim to Rs. 17,75,000 was correct. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and accepted the departmental appeal on this issue.