2008 (9) TMI 591 - HC - Income Tax

Allowance - Depreciation on furniture - Seller does not dispute that the respondent is entitled to claim depreciation under section 32 with regard to furniture acquired. - However the dispute is with regard to valuation of the furniture - If that be so the same cannot be a question of law. Interest income of Rs. 45, 59, 163 as business income - the borrowing made by the appellant were very much part and parcel of the assessee s investment in acquiring the ship. Even the R.B.I. s permission was obtained for the same and interest was acquired with regard to the unutilised portion of the said borrowing. Interest attributable to earning of dividend income - computing the book profit - Net profit enhanced by the amount of interest and other expenses as no expenditure was attributable to earning of dividend income exempt u/s 10(33)- interest attributable to earning of dividend income exempt under section 10(33)- the Tribunal has clearly said that the said claim has been covered in view of the judgment of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd. reported in (2006 -TMI - 40378 - SUPREME Court) - Hence the appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding depreciation on furniture acquired.
2. Treatment of interest income as business income under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Interpretation of section 10(33) regarding interest attributable to earning dividend income.
4. Interpretation of section 115JA(2) on enhancing net profit by interest and other expenses.

Analysis:

1. The first issue revolves around the interpretation of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerning the claim of depreciation on furniture acquired. The appellant contested the valuation of furniture at Rs. 7,96,433, leading to a dispute. However, the court noted that this valuation dispute does not constitute a question of law, indicating that the respondent is entitled to claim depreciation under section 32 for the furniture acquired.

2. The second issue pertains to the treatment of interest income as business income under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the borrowing by the appellant was integral to the investment in acquiring a ship, with RBI's permission obtained for the borrowing. The interest earned on the unutilized portion of the borrowing was deemed to be for a business purpose. Consequently, the Tribunal's factual finding established that the interest income was rightfully treated as business income, negating any legal question in the appeal.

3. The third issue involves the interpretation of section 10(33) regarding the interest attributable to earning dividend income. The Tribunal referenced a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd., where it was concluded that the claim in question was covered. This reference to a precedent supported the Tribunal's decision, indicating that the interest attributed to earning dividend income was allowable.

4. The fourth issue arises as a consequence of the third question and pertains to the interpretation of section 115JA(2) regarding enhancing net profit by interest and other expenses. Since the third question was resolved based on a precedent, the subsequent question was deemed consequential. The court found no justification for the legal questions raised in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various legal issues concerning the Income-tax Act, 1961 and provided detailed analysis and interpretations for each issue raised in the appeal, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the findings and conclusions presented.