SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Kar) 255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
E.S. Venkataramaiah and M. Rama Jois, JJ.
Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka —Appellant
Vs.
Southern Founders —Respondent
Income Tax Referred Case No. 165 of 1975
Decided on : 12-01-1979

Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, for the Appellant
Mr. G. Sarangan, for the Respondent

Interest paid on borrowings for business purposes is deductible as revenue expenditure, irrespective of whether the assets acquired with the borrowed funds have been put to use during the accounting year.

Headnote:

Interest Deduction - Business Purpose - The court held that the interest paid on amounts borrowed for the construction of new factory building was allowable as a revenue deduction for the purpose of the assessee's business, even though the building had not been put to use during the accounting year.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee claimed interest paid on amounts borrowed for constructing additional buildings as a revenue deduction. The ITO and the AAC disallowed the deduction, stating that the buildings had not yet been put to use. The Tribunal allowed the claim, leading to a reference at the instance of the department.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the interest paid on the borrowings for constructing the buildings was deductible as revenue expenditure, despite the buildings not being put to use for business during the accounting year.

Issues: The main issue was whether the interest payment on borrowings for constructing new buildings was allowable as a revenue deduction for the purpose of the assessee's business, considering that the buildings had not been put to use during the accounting year.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the view taken in a previous case and held that the interest paid on borrowings for business purposes was deductible as revenue expenditure, irrespective of whether the buildings had been put to use during the accounting year.

Final Decision: The court answered the question in the affirmative against the department, allowing the interest payment on borrowings for the construction of new buildings as a revenue deduction for the purpose of the assessee's business.

JUDGMENT

Venkataramaiah, J.—The question referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in the above case reads :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the money borrowed and utilised in the construction of the new factory building was for the purpose of the assessee's business and therefore, the interest payment on such borrowings is allowable as a revenue deduction ?"

2. The assessee claimed during the relevant assessment year the interest paid on amounts borrowed by it for purpose of putting up additional buildings. The ITO and the AAC held that the interest paid on such borrowings would not be deductible as revenue expenditure on the ground that the additional building constructed by the assessee had not yet been put to use. In the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, the orders passed by the authorities under the Act were set aside and the claim made by the assessee was allowed. Hence, this reference at the instance of the department.

3. It is not disputed that for the purpose of carrying on the business the assessee had constructed certain buildings and for the purpose of meeting the expenditure incurred for constructing such buildings, the assessee borrowed monies and on such borrowings paid interest. We are of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest paid was deductible as revenue expenditure irrespective of the fact that the buildings in question had not been actually put to use for carrying on business during the accounting year by the assessee. This view accords with the view taken by a Division Bench of this court, of which one of us was a member, in Ravi Machine Tools (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ILR (1978) KAR 1527. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative against the department.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top