Case Law Details

Case Name : Vardhman Polytex Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Civil appeal nos. 6438 and 6443 of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 12/09/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (916)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Vardhman Polytex Ltd.

v/s.

Commissioner of Income-tax

Civil appeal nos. 6438 and 6443 of 2012

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

Leave granted.

The question which arises for determination in these civil appeals filed by the assessee is as follows:

“Whether interest paid in respect of borrowings for acquisition of capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year can be permitted as allowable deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?”

This question has been answered in favour of the assessee in the case of Dy. CIT v. Core Health Care Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 194 Consequently, the civil appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with no order as to costs.

——————

Also Read :-

Interest paid on the capital borrowed for the acquisition of an asset cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (25544)
Type : Featured (4124) Judiciary (10294)

0 responses to “Interest on loan for acquisition of capital asset is deductible even if such asset not put to use in previous year”

  1. vswami says:

    In the context herein, though not of direct relevance to the limited point of issue, it is worthwhile to bear in mind the following:

    The implications of section 36(1)(iii), which was being considered as almost a settled law, came to be relooked at in the aftetrmath of introduction of Section 14A with retrospective effect. However, according to a view, NOT WITHOUT SUBSTANCE, the lately ongoing controversy whether the said provision i.e. section 14A can be construed to modify or override in any manner the existing legal position under section 36 (1)(iii), especially if rw / in the light of the residuary provsion of section 37(1), is misconceived and not well founded.

    For a critique, one may look up the published article – 14 CPT 819. Perhaps, that may help help in understanding in proper light all related issues arising under sectionb 36 (1 related

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *