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

Discontinuance of business of firm will not vest ownership of firm’s property with partners

Discontinuance of business of partnership firm will not result in vesting ownership of firm's property with individual partners for capital…

7 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Release of seized jewellery/gold u/s 132B within 120 days is directory not mandatory

Stipulation of 120 days for release of seized jewellery/gold u/s 132B is directory not mandatory – Delhi High Court In…

8 hours ago
  • ICAI

ICAI issues FAQs on key accounting implications arising from New Labour Codes

FAQs on key accounting implications arising from the New Labour Codes Recently, Government consolidated existing labour laws into four new…

12 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Deduction u/s 80-IA(7) not allowed for delayed filing of audit report in Form 10CCB

Filing audit report in Form 10CCB within due date is mandatory. The assessee cannot claim deduction u/s 80-IA(7) he ground…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Is CSR expenditure is allowable under section 80G of Income Tax Act – ITAT says “Yes”

CSR expenditure of companies is allowable under section 80G unless fall under the two exceptions specified. In a recent judgment,…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Territorial jurisdiction of ITAT is determined on the basis of situs of Assessing Officer

Jurisdiction of ITAT is determined not by the place of business or residence of assessee but by the location of…

1 day ago