Judgment:
Dr. B.P. Saraf J.
1. This is a cross-reference at the instance of the assessee as well as the Revenue. The following three questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to this court for opinion :
2. At the instance of the assessee :
'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the company to deduct the sum of Rs. 5,31,138 paid as interest on the usance bills drawn under the Scheme of the IDBI as business expenditure has been rightly rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax, Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no appeal lies against the levy of interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act ?'
At the instance of the Revenue :
'3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest on loans borrowed for advancing it to the subsidiary company was allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'
3. Counsel for the parties are also agreed that the third question at the instance of the assessee is covered by the decision of this court in Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]202ITR375(Bom) .
4. Following the above decision, we answer the second question referred to us in the negative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
5. Counsel for the parties are also agreed that the third question at the instance of the Revenue is also covered by the decision of this court in the assessee's own case in Income-tax Reference No. 117 of 1980, decided on August 27, 1993. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. v. CWT.
6. Following the above decision, we answer the third question referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
7. The only question that remains to be decided is question No. 1 referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The facts, on the basis of which the claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, are as follows :
8. The assessee borrowed money under the I.D.B.I. Scheme amounting to Rs. 5,31,138 for the purchase of machinery and paid interest on the bills of exchange accepted under the said I.D.B.I. Scheme. The interest so paid was claimed as deduction by the assessee in the computation of its income. The claim was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer as he found that the said loan amount has in fact been utilised not for the purchase of machinery for which it was intended but for the purchase of the shares in a foreign company 'Gula N. S. `Malaysia''.
9. A similar claim has also been disallowed by the Income-tax Officer in the earlier years on the same ground. The Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal all were of the opinion that the above payment was referable to a loan used for capital investment in shares and the interest paid on such loan utilised for the purpose of purchasing shares in a foreign company cannot be allowed as a deduction in the computation of the business income of the assessee.
10. We find that the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the above conclusion and rejecting the claim of the assessee for deduction of the amount of interest from the business income of the assessee. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
11. The other two questions have already been answered in paragraphs 3 and 5 above.
12. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs.