Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- - was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to ofisade pvt. akil qureshi, learned standing counsel for the revenue, relied upon the order of the tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal for the following reasons :7. section 57(iii) of the act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

d.a. mehta, j.1. the income-tax appellate tribunal, ahmedabad bench 'b', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'2. the assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on march 31, 1978, march 31, 1979 and march 31, 1980, respectively. the assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. the income-tax officer disallowed the sum of rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and rs. 8,63,054 for the.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

D.A. Mehta, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '744809',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
			'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
			'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Gujarat',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '744809',
		(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kalindi Investment P Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - Citation 744809 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '744809',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 14 and 57',
		'appealno' => 'Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988',
		'appellant' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'casenote' => ' -  -  was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz. 6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--Income from other sources'.As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => ' Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Gujarat',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-12-11',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.</p><p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'</p><p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.</p><p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.</p><p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.</p><p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.</p><p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :</p><p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.</p><p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.</p><p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.</p><p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</p><p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.</p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '744809',
	(int) 1 => 'kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/744809/kalindi-investment-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-income'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>D.A. Mehta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim on account of interest was allowable ?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The assessment years involved are 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, while the relevant accounting periods are the financial years ended on March 31, 1978, March 31, 1979 and March 31, 1980, respectively. The assessee is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 6,87,170 for the assessment year 1978-79, Rs. 8,42,610 for the assessment year 1979-80 and Rs. 8,63,054 for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that the assessee's claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act was not allowable in view of the fact that the expenditure on interest had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the disallowance had correctly been made by the Income-tax Officer ; however, for the later two years the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 6,87,170 as in the first year, viz., the assessment year 1978-79.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It appears that the assessee-company borrowed Rs. 1,50,00,000. The interest paid was claimed as deductible item of expenditure incurred for the purpose of making or earning income. The borrowings were invested in Wadi Investments Pvt. Ltd., to the tune of Rs. 11,66,000 and towards purchasing shares of Telerad Private Limited to the tune of Rs. 1,38,82,000. For the present reference we are only concerned with the transactions relatable to Telerad Pvt. Ltd. The shares were purchased on February 5, 1977, and it is an undisputed fact that the entire share capital was transferred to one Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. at the book value on February 14, 1977. It was in the backdrop of this fact situation that the interest was disallowed by the lower authorities as stated hereinabove and such disallowance came to be confirmed by the Tribunal.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. Mr. B. D. Karia, the learned advocate for the applicant-assessee, submitted that the company was carrying on business of investments, i.e, it was an investment company, and it was out of commercial consideration, that it had entered into the aforesaid transactions and incurred liability to pay interest on the borrowings made by it. He submitted that the transfer of the entire shareholdings of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., which was acquired out of borrowed funds was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., wholly owned subsidiary company, only with a view to indirectly facilitate carrying on the activity of Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., which is a source of income. Elaborating on this submission, it was submitted that Telerad Pvt. was a manufacturing unit while the assessee-company was an investment company and hence to ensure that the manufacturing activities were carried on efficiently the unit was transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd. which was a manufacturing company. That the borrowing made by the assessee-company and the liability to pay interest on such borrowing was incurred and the assessee's claim had to be appreciated in light of the fact that the assessee fulfilled all the requirements of Section 57(iii) of the Act, i.e, the expenditure was neither in the nature of capital expenditure nor personal expenditure in the hands of the company. In support of his submission, Mr. Karia placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) and specifically drew our attention to the various tests laid down by the court at page 672 of the report. He read test No. (vii) with great emphasis and submitted that the case of the assessee-company fell within the said test and thus the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction as claimed.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. As against this, Mr. Akil Qureshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, relied upon the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders of the authorities below and submitted that all the three authorities had found on the facts that the assessee had failed to establish nexus between the expenditure incurred and the purpose for which the expenditure had been incurred, viz., making or earning of the income. He further submitted that from the facts available on record it was apparent that the purpose of borrowing was not the sole purpose and hence in the light of the test laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Virmati Ramkrishna v. CIT : [1981]131ITR659(Guj) (Appex), there was no case made out to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Mr. Qureshi also relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Sarabhai Sons (P.) Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR464(Guj) in support of his submissions.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Having heard both the sides we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for the following reasons :',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Section 57(iii) of the Act is relatable to deductions allowable against the income chargeable under the head--'Income from other sources'. As to what is income from other sources is laid down in Section 56 of the Act which specifically states that it is income which is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in Section 14, items A to E, Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act and applying the said provisions and the facts found by the Tribunal it is apparent that the assessee-company was not carrying on any business and thus was not having income which would fall within the head 'Income from business or profession' or any of the other heads specified in Section 14 of the Act. The assessee-company has admittedly claimed deduction of interest against income from other sources, i.e, dividend and interest income, but such dividend and interest income is not earned from the investment made in the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., or any other investment made which is relatable to the transaction in question. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provision in the light of the facts found there is no making or earning of income relatable to the transaction in question.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. The next question that would arise that in the light of the settled legal position : it is not necessary that any income must actually have been earned for the purpose of claiming deduction, do the facts of the case go to show that even that condition is applicable The Tribunal has found from the facts that the source of income (shares) has altogether disappeared. In relation to this finding Mr. Karia during the course of his submissions contended that the Tribunal had committed an error in recording this finding because what had happened was that the assessee-company had converted from one form of investment to another form of investment when the shares of Telerad Pvt. Ltd., were transferred to Ofisade Pvt. Ltd., and it was stipulated as per the agreement that the consideration shall be received in instalments spread over a period of eight years. This contention requires to be stated to be rejected, because it is the consideration for transfer of shares which is payable in instalments and that too without interest. It is not as if non-receipt of consideration is a form of investment by way of interest bearing deposit; if it was so, the contention might have deserved consideration. Even otherwise, the borrowing was not for the purpose of investment by way of outstanding dues. Further more, even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the outstanding dues would be a form of investment, yet in the face of the fact that the same was not interest bearing it cannot be said that the borrowing had been utilised for the purpose of making or earning income.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>9. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the source of income, viz., shares stood transferred and hence the purpose for which the borrowing had been made, stood frustrated. In fact the expenditure had not been incurred for preserving and maintaining the source of income nor was it a case where the assessee had no option except to incur the expenditure, but on the contrary, the assessee had the option, viz., it was not necessary for the assessee to transfer the shares for claiming the deduction and yet the assessee exercised the option the other way by transferring shares which had no connection with the making or earning of the income. Moreover the Tribunal has found that at the highest even on the facts as placed by the assessee on record, the purpose of the borrowing was not the sole purpose but was a mixed purpose including reorganisation of the investments of the assessee-company and even on that count the deduction was not permissible.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>10. In view of what is stated hereinbefore we do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim on account of interest was not allowable. The question referred is therefore answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.',
	(int) 13 => ''
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Direct Taxation
Court	Gujarat High Court
Decided On	Dec-11-2001
Case Number	Income-tax Reference No. 122 of 1988
Judge	B.C. Patel and; D.A. Mehta, JJ.
Reported in	(2003)179CTR(Guj)301; [2003]260ITR261(Guj)
Acts	Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 14 and 57
Appellant	Kalindi Investment P. Ltd.
Respondent	Commissioner of Income-tax
Appellant Advocate	B.D. Karia and; R.K. Patel, Advs.
Respondent Advocate	Akil Qureshi, Adv. for; Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.

Kalindi Investment P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax - Court Judgment