When the interest payable on the original loan is not allowable u/s 24(1)(vi), then the interest paid or payable on the second loan for repayment of original loan is also not allowable.
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of JCIT v State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. (Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-712- ITAT-MUM]. The ITAT held that the Taxpayer, a company incorporated in Mauritius, having established a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, is entitled to the deduction of expenses, incurred for the purpose of the business of the PE, in computing the profits of the PE under Article 7(3) of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty (Tax Treaty). In view of the specific provisions of the Tax Treaty allowing the deduction for such expenses, such a deduction is not subject to restrictions prescribed under the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
This article summarizes a recent ruling of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Panatone Finvest Ltd.(Taxpayer) [2009-TIOL-717-ITAT-MUM]. The Taxpayer incurred interest expenditure on the funds borrowed for investing in shares of a company, with a view to acquire controlling interest. The ITAT held that the interest expenditure incurred is not allowable under Section 57(iii) (Section) of the Indian Tax Law (ITL), since it is not incurred ‘wholly and exclusively’ for the purpose of earning dividend income.
A plain reading of language used in the definition of `loan or deposit’ in section 269T clearly provides loan or deposit means any loan or deposit of any nature. Thus, there is no question of excluding current loan for the purpose of section 269T of the Act.
. In this case, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.06.1999 declaring total income at Rs. 15,77,534/-, wherein the arrears of rent was included while computing the income under the head “income from house property”. The A.O. processed the return of income u/s 143(1) at a returned total income of Rs. 15,77,534/-.
Section 271(1)(c) provides that if the AO or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner, in the course of proceedings in this Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded by a reason of the concealment of particulars of his income.
The use of word developing’ in juxtaposition to infrastructure facility in section 80-1A(4) indicates that what is eligible for deduction under this sub-section is the profits and gains derived from the development of infrastructure facility and not something de hors it; so in order to be eligible for deduction the development should be that of the infrastructure facility as a whole and not a particular part of it; it may be possible that some part of development work is assigned by the developer to some contractor for doing it on his behalf; that will not put the doer of such work into the shoes of a developer; therefore, a mere contractor cannot be conferred with the benefit as provided in section 80-IA.
The penalty proceedings and the assessment proceedings both are different. Explanation 1to section 271(1)(c) in respect of any fact relating to the computation of total income states that the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of an assessee shall be deemed to be the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. This deeming provision for concealment is not absolute one.
The second ground for passing provisional order by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act relates to the provision for doubtful debts. As per the CIT, the provision for doubtful debts at Rs.818.03 lacs debited in the Profit and Loss account was not added back for calculating book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, which resulted into underassessment of income to that extent. In forming this opinion, the CIT has governed itself by the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. Beardsell Ltd., 244 ITR 256, wherein the Madras High Court held that where there is a statutory provision contained in explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 115JB of the Act, the provision made for uncertain liabilities are to be disallowed for calculating the book profits under Section 115JB of the Act.
In our considered opinion, no prudent businessman would borrow funds on interest and keep his own funds idle. Besides, (he transaction of loan is also not third party transaction but the funds borrowed from the Indian Overseas Bank by the sister concern have been taken as loan by the assessee without any business necessity because its own funds have remained idle throughout the year. The assessee has also admitted that the funds were kept idle and not utilized during the course of the accounting period. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT (A), which is confirmed.
