News Update

Global Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : 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.