| Case ID |
0afb6d80-6b10-45c0-bd06-88c7646bbfab |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
TAX CASE No. 108 OF 1969 (REFERENCE No. 24 OF 1969 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 19, 1974 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the assessees were not eligible for the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the interest had been paid on amounts invested in agricultural lands, which were outside the scope of the Act. The court further stated that since there was no share income from which to justify the claim for deduction under section 67(3), the claim under section 36(1)(iii) could not be accepted either. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was not allowable, and the decision favored the revenue. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of sections 36(1)(iii) and 67(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to the deductibility of interest paid by partners on borrowed capital. The assessees, M.S.P. Raja and M.S.P. Rajes, were involved in multiple partnerships, and the issue arose when they attempted to claim deductions for interest paid on amounts withdrawn from a partnership to invest in agricultural property. The court emphasized that interest on capital borrowed for non-business purposes does not qualify for deductions under the Income-tax Act, particularly when the income generated is exempt from taxation. The ruling reiterated the importance of the nature of income and the specific provisions governing deductions, distinguishing between different types of business activities. The decision highlights the need for careful consideration of the tax implications of investments and the conditions under which deductions may be claimed. This case serves as a significant reference point for understanding tax deductions related to agricultural investments versus business income. |
| Court |
Madras High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
V. Ramaswami,
V. Sethuraman
|
| Lawyers |
S. Swaminathan,
K. Ramagopal,
V. Balasubrahmanyan,
J. Jayaraman
|
| Petitioners |
M.S.P. Raja
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1976 SLD 553 = (1976) 105 ITR 295
|
| Other Citations |
Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 58 (Bom.),
Chellappa Chettiar v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 97 (Mad.),
R.M. Chidambaram Pillai v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 494 (Mad.) [FB],
CIT v. Indian Bank Ltd. [1965] 56 ITR 77 (SC),
CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 452 (SC),
CIT v. P.M. Muthuraman Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 710 (SC),
CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd. [1956] 29 ITR 661 (SC),
CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 (SC),
CIT v. Somasundaram Chettiar AIR 1928 (Mad.) 487 (FB),
Laxmichand Jaiporia Spinning & Wvg. Mills, In re [1950] 18 ITR 919 (East Punj.),
P.V. Mohamed Ghouse v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 127 (Mad.),
Provident Investment Co. Ltd., In re [1932] 2 Comp Cas. 312; 6 ITC 21 ; AIR 1932 Bom 94,
P. Rm. S. Ramanathan Chettiar v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 534 (Mad.),
N. Sundareswaran v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 219 (Ker.),
A. Suppan Chettiar & Co. v. CIT [1929] 4 ITC 211 AIR 1930 (Mad.) 124 (FB)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
36(1)(iii),
67(3)
|