TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of shares ? " During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee, an individual, sold shares of the value of Rs. 74,902 and returned capital gains of Rs. 28,402. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 30,478, being interest paid to M/s. MGA Pai Sons on the money borrowed for the purchase of the shares. The ITO disallowed this claim on the ground that the said expenditure had been allowed in computing her income from dividends, hence, such allowance was not permissible as per provisions of s. 55. The assessee's claim was allowed by the AAC and the Tribunal also agreed with that view, on an appeal by the Department. The main source of the assessee's income was by way of dividends on her shareholdings. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the assessee. The interest paid by the assessee for the acquisition of the shares on the money borrowed for that purpose, undoubtedly is an expenditure incurred for the acquisition of the shares and, hence, constitutes " cost of acquisition " for purposes of s. 48. But the ITO has disallowed this expenditure claimed, for the reason that a sum of Rs. 29,116 paid towards interest and collection charges had already been allowed as an expenditure while computing the income from dividends, and that, therefore, the claim for allowance of Rs. 30,478 again is not permissible. The ITO relied upon the provisions of s. 55 to disallow the interest. On behalf of the Revenue one of the contentions urged before the Tribunal was that the deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 48. But, if the same sum is already the subject-matter of deduction under other heads like those under s. 57, we cannot understand how it could find a place again for the purpose of computation under s. 48. No assessee under the scheme of the I.T. Act could be allowed deduction of the same amount twice over. We are firmly of the opinion that if an amount is already allowed under s. 57 while computing the income of the assessee, the same cannot be allowed as deduction for the purpose of computing the " capital gains" under s. 48. The statement of law thus being made clear, it is not possible to answer the question one way or the other, since there is no finding recorded by the Tribunal in regard to the contention raised by the Department t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
