Facts of the Case

The assessee, an investment company, had raised funds amounting to ₹1.50 crore for subscribing to debentures issued by Shreyans Industries Ltd., in which it already held 28% equity. The borrowing arrangement was structured through LIC Mutual Fund under a buy-back agreement, carrying interest at 19.5% per annum.

The purpose behind the transaction was to ensure participation in the rights issue and maintain the promoter group’s shareholding percentage. The non-convertible portion of the debentures was subsequently sold at a discount, and the capital loss was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment.

However, during reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest expenditure under Section 57(iii), treating the borrowing as capital-oriented and not for earning income. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, and the ITAT upheld the same. The Revenue challenged the ITAT’s decision before the Delhi High Court.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether interest/service charges paid on borrowed funds used for subscribing to rights issue/debentures are deductible under Section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act?
  2. Whether the expenditure incurred for maintaining shareholding control constitutes capital expenditure?
  3. Whether the dominant purpose test applies in determining deductibility under Section 57(iii)?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue’s Contentions)

  • The Revenue argued that the dominant object of the expenditure was retention of control over the investee company through maintaining 28% shareholding.
  • Such expenditure was intrinsically linked to capital structure and should be treated as capital expenditure.
  • Since the expenditure was not directly incurred for earning income, deduction under Section 57(iii) was not permissible.
  • Reliance was placed on judicial precedents where expenditure incurred for acquiring or protecting controlling interest was held capital in nature.

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee’s Contentions)

  • The assessee contended that the transaction was, in substance, financing for acquisition of debentures and the interest paid was a legitimate borrowing cost.
  • It was argued that if the same amount had been borrowed from any ordinary lender, the interest would have been unquestionably allowable.
  • The arrangement with LIC Mutual Fund was merely a financing mechanism and did not alter the nature of the expenditure.
  • The Revenue had already accepted the capital loss arising from the same transaction in the earlier assessment year, and therefore could not alter the treatment in subsequent years.

Court Findings / Court Order

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals and held in favour of the assessee.

The Court observed that:

  • The assessee was the de facto beneficiary of the debentures despite the formal structure involving LIC Mutual Fund.
  • The substance of the arrangement established that the transaction was essentially a financing arrangement.
  • Interest/service charges paid on borrowed funds did not form part of capital acquisition cost.
  • The expenditure was in the nature of borrowing cost and was revenue expenditure.
  • The earlier acceptance of capital loss by the Revenue reinforced the nature of the transaction.

Accordingly, the Court held that the interest expenditure was rightly allowable under Section 57(iii) and could not be disallowed merely because the transaction also resulted in retention of shareholding control.

Important Clarification by the Court

The Court clarified that there is a distinction between:

  • Expenditure incurred for raising capital (capital in nature), and
  • Interest/service charges paid on borrowed funds used for investment purposes (revenue in nature).

Merely because the investment incidentally helped retain control over shareholding does not convert borrowing cost into capital expenditure.

Sections Involved

  • Section 57(iii), Income Tax Act, 1961 – Deduction of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income from other sources
  • Section 37(1), Income Tax Act, 1961 – General deduction of business expenditure
  • Section 143(3), Income Tax Act, 1961 – Scrutiny assessment
  • Reassessment provisions under the Income Tax Act

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2017:DHC:372-DB/SRB19012017ITA7092004.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.