Income Tax

Loan pre-payment premium/charges paid not capital expenditure but Revenue – HC

Loan pre-payment premium/charges paid for reducing interest liability not result in acquisition of any asset and not a capital but Revenue expenditure 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2890 (2019) (04) HC

The instant appeal was filed by the Revenue against the impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards the premium paid on prepayment of loan by the assessee.

The case of the Revenue was that the said expenditure was not allowable since it was capital in nature and the same should not treated as revenue expenditure.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the AO, in a preceeding assessment year himself had allowed deduction on payment of such premium as revenue expenditure and in yet another AY , the AO had disallowed the same by treating the payment of such premium as capital expenditure while the CIT (appeals) had deleted the said addition and the Tribunal had upheld the order of CIT (appeals) deleting such addition.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of deduction on payment of premium of pre payment of the loan to reduce its interest burden in view of falling interest rate.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the  expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of premium paid on pre payment of loan for reducing interest the liability could not be called acquisition of any asset and could not be treated as capital expenditure and it has to be allowed as revenue expenditure.

Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) for filing revised return to avail benefits u/s 44ADA

PCIT directed to consider condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) in filing revised return to availing benefits of section 44ADA In…

2 hours ago
  • arbitration

Whether condition of pre-deposit prior to reference to Arbitration is arbitrary & violative of right to sue?

Whether condition of pre-deposit prior to reference to Arbitration is arbitrary and violative of the right to sue – Division…

5 hours ago
  • Income Tax

FAQs on Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme and Rule 2026

Frequently asked Questions on Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme and Rule 2026.  CBDT has released a FAQs on…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers- Disclosure Scheme Rules 2026 notified

Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers- Disclosure Scheme Rules 2026 notified. Rule come into force on the 16th day of August,…

3 days ago
  • GST

Order u/s 69 of the CGST Act has to be communicated before arrest of person concerned– SC

Order u/s 69 of the CGST Act authorising arrest of a person has to be communicated to him before arrest–…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Refund can not be denied on the ground that it was claimed in a return filed u/s 148 – ITAT

Refund can not be denied on the ground that it was claimed in a return filed u/s 148 where no…

6 days ago