News Update

Requisite Checks for Appeals - RespondentInheritance Tax row - A golden opportunity to end 32-years long Policy Paralysis on DTCThe Heat is on: Preserving Earth's Climate in the Face of Global WarmingVAT - Timeline for frefund must be followed mandatorily while recovering dues under Delhi VAT Act: SCIndia, Australia to work closely for collaborative projectsCX - All the information was available to department in 2003 itself, therefore, SCN issued four years after gathering information is not sustainable and is highly barred by limitation: HCPowerful voices of amazing women leaders resonated at UN HqsCX - Clearance to sister concern for captive consumption - Department cannot compel assessee to perpetuate the illegality and in such circumstances the whole exercise was revenue neutral: HC75 International visitors from 23 countries arrive to watch world's largest elections unfoldCentre asks States to improve organ donation frequencyCus - Revenue involved in the appeal filed by Commissioner is far below the threshold monetary limit fixed by the CBEC, therefore, department cannot proceed with this appeal - Appeal stands disposed of: HCPM says NO to religion-based reservationCus - Export of non-basmati rice - Since the objective of Central Government in imposing ban with immediate effect was to avert a food crisis in the country, a strict compliance of exemption conditions would further the said intent of the Notification(s): HCAdani Port to develop port in PhilippinesCX - Appellant should not be left without an opportunity to put-forth his case on merits, particularly, when matter was decided during period of Covid-19 pandemic and also appellant contends that no opportunity of virtual hearing was granted by adjudicating authority: HCKiller floods - 228 killed in Kenya + 78 in BrazilI-T - Grant of registration u/s 12A can't be denied by invoking Sec 13(1)(b), as provisions of section 13 would be attracted only at time of assessment and not at time of grant of registration: ITATFlight cancellation case: Qantas accepts USD 66 mn penaltyI-T- Joint ownership in two residential properties at the time of sale of the original asset does not disentitle the assessee to claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act: ITATIsrael shuts down Al Jazeera; seizes broadcast equipmentI-T - If assessee was prevented from production of evidences because of its non-availability or delay in its retrieval coupled with ongoing several reassessment, assessee should be allowed to adduce additional evidence: ITATIndia to wait for Canadian Police inputs on arrest of men accused of killing Sikh separatist: JaishankarI-T- If assessee is otherwise found eligible, CIT(E) should grant provisional approval to assessee under Clause (iii) to First Proviso to section 80G(5): ITATLabour Party candidate Sadiq Khan wins record third term as London MayorI-T - Donation made to trust which is otherwise not approved during relevant period as per CBDT Circular, is not eligible for deduction u/s 35(1): ITATGovt scraps ban on export of onionI-T- Assessee could have filed application in Form No.10AB on or before 30.09.2022, which assessee failed to do : ITATUS Nurse convicted of killing 17 patients - 700 yrs of jail-term awardedI-T- AO erred in making addition for completed/non abated assessment as no incriminating material found during course of search :ITAT
 
I-T - If interest liability accrued during relevant A.Y was not actually paid back and rather adjusted into further bank loan, then it is not eligible for deduction u/s 43B: SC

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, FEB 26, 2019: THE ISSUE BEFORE THE APEX COURT IS - Whether once interest liability accrued during relevant assessment year was not actually paid back and rather adjusted into further bank loan, is not eligible for deduction u/s 43B. YES IS THE VERDICT.

Facts of the case:

The assessee company filed its return declaring total loss of Rs.3,76,70,656/-. The said return was processed and the assessment was passed, wherein the AO disallowed the deduction claimed by assessee with regard to payment of interest amounting to Rs.2,51,31,154/- to the IDBI Bank, referring to the CBDT Circular dated Dec 16, 1988. On appeal, the CIT(A) found that the fact that the entry pertaining to the interest element outstanding to financial institutions had been reversed after receipt of funds of Rs.8 crores from IDBI, substantiates the contention of assessee company that the entries relating to interest outstanding with reference the said institutions had been squared up and a new credit entry of loan of IDBI was appearing in the balance sheet. The counsel for assessee pleaded that since no interest payment was outstanding and the amount was paid off, the expenditure of interest was allowable u/s 43B. It was further added that in case the loan had been disbursed in two parts; one to meet the interest outstanding and the balance for financial assistance, still the entries in the books of account would remain the same and the outstanding interest would have been NIL. Hence, the CIT(A) held that the disallowance made by AO contrary to the substance of the transaction and the provisions of Section 43B.

Not satisfied, the Revenue approached the Tribunal, wherein the addition made by AO u/s 43B stood deleted, on conversion of upaid interest into a funded interest loan treating the same as interest payment. The matter ultimately reached High Court, which upheld the order of ITAT, relying on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bhagwati Autocast Ltd. [261 ITR 481].

Apex Court held:

++ it is noted that Explanation 3C was inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 and it was declared that "a deduction of any sum, being interest payable under clause (d) of section 43B, shall be allowed if such interest has been actually paid and any interest referred to in that clause which has been converted into a loan or borrowing shall not be deemed to have been actually paid." The interest liability which accrued during the relevant assessment year was not actually paid back by the assessee, rather was sought to be adjusted in the further loan of Rs.8 crores which was obtained by the IDBI Bank. The judgment of Delhi High Court relied upon by Revenue's counsel refers to Section 43B as well as Explanation 3C, and held that Explanation 3C having retrospective effect with effect from April 01, 1989 shall be applicable to the year in question. The statutory Explanation 3C inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 is thus squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. It appears that the attention of High Court was not invited to Explanation 3C. Hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the deduction claimed by assessee.

(See 2019-TIOL-81-SC-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.