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

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…

2 days ago
  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

4 days ago
  • Insurance

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act – SC

Deceased homemaker can not be considered as dependant for award of compensation under MV Act. Courts to award a composite…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price

CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…

6 days ago
  • GST

Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities

Extension of timeline for implementation of mandatory "Ship To GSTIN" and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities GSTN Advisory dated…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT

No protective addition required in the hand of a third party when additions have been confirmed in the hands of…

7 days ago