Case: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd

incurred by the Assessee according to the method of accounting regularly employed by him) only in computing the income referred to in Section 28 of that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by him. 8. As noted above, Explanation 3C was inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1989 which is to the following effect: Explanation 3C.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a deduction of any sum, being interest payable under Clause (d) of this section, shall be allowed if such interest has been actually paid and any interest referred to in that Clause which has been converted into a loan or borrowing shall not be deemed to have been actually paid. 9. The appellate authority has noticed the facts in para 12 as extracted above which needs no repetition. 10. The interest liability which accrued during the relevant assessment year was not actually paid back by the Assessee rather was sought to be adjusted in the further loan of Rs. 8 crores which was obtained by the Industrial Development Bank of India. 11. The judgment of the Delhi High Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to Section 43B as well as Explanation 3C and held that Explanation 3C having retrospective effect with effect from April 1, 1989 shall be applicable to the year in question. The Delhi High Court in its judgment has referred to the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Eicher Motors Limited (supra). It is useful to refer to paras 11 and 12 of the judgment. 12. In so concluding, this Court is supported by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 315 ITR 312 (MP) and subsequently, the judgment of the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in CIT v. Pennar Profiles Limited (ITA No. 289 of 2003, decided on February 11, 2015 (2015) 376 ITR 355 (T&AP)). In Eicher Motors, the court noted2: As observed supra, Explanation 3C has now in clear terms provided that such conversion of interest amount into loan shall not be deemed to be regarded as actually paid amount within the meaning of Section 43B. In view of clear legislative mandate removing this doubt and making the intention of the Legislature clear in relation to such transaction, it is not now necessary for this Court to interpret the unamended Section 43B in detail, nor is it necessary for this Court to take note of facts in detail as also the submissions urged in support of various contentions except to place reliance on Explanation 3C to Section 43B and answer the questions against the Assessee and in favour of Revenue. The court in Pennar Profiles Limited (supra) considered the decisions in Mahindra Nissan Allywin Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 493 (AP), Vinir Engineering P. Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 154 (Karn) and Eicher Motors (supra) and held as follows (page 359 of 376 ITR): In this backdrop, we have perused the provisions contained in Section 43B of the Act, in particular, Explanation 3C thereof, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1989. This provision was inserted in 2006 and hence, this Court in Mahindra Nissans case, had no occasion to deal with the case in the light of this provision. In so far as the Karnataka High Court is concerned, though this provision was existing on the date of judgment, it appears that it was not brought to the notice of learned Judges and, hence, the Division Bench proceeded to consider and decide the appeal of the Assessee without referring to Explanation 3C appended to Section 43B of the Act. As a matter of fact, from reading of Explanation 3C, in our opinion, the question as raised in the present appeals stands answered without further discussion. This provision was inserted for removal of doubts and it was declared that deduction of any sum, being interest payable under Clause (d) of Section 43B of the Act, shall be allowed if such interest has been actually paid and any interest referred to in that clause, which has been converted into a loan or borrowing, shall not be deemed to have been actually paid. Thus, the doubt stands removed in view of Explanation 3C. This provision was considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Eicher Motors Limited v. CIT to hold that in view of Explanation 3C appended to Section 43B with retrospective effect from April 1, 1989, conversion of interest amount into loan would not be deemed to be regarded as actually paid amount within the meaning of Section 43B of the Act. In the light of the introduction of Explanation 3C, this Court does not consider it necessary to discuss the precedents relied upon by the Assessee delivered prior to the enactment of Finance Act, 2006. As regards the decision in Shakti Spring Industries P. Ltd. [2013] 219 Taxman 124 (Jharkhand) (Mag.), the interest due in that case was offset against a subsidy which the Assessee was entitled to, and it did not involve an instance where it was converted into a loan or borrowing within the meaning of Explanation 3C. It is perhaps for this reason that Explanation 3C was not discussed. 13. In the impugned judgment, the Gujarat High Court has relied upon Bhagwati Autocast Ltd. (supra) which was not a case covered by Section 43B(d) rather was a case of Section 43B(a). The provisions of Section 43B covers a host of different situations. The statutory Explanation 3C inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. It appears that the attention of the High Court was not invited to Explanation 3C, we are, thus, of the view that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the deduction as claimed by the Assessee. The appellate authority, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court erred in reversing the said disallowance.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. The appellate authority has noticed the facts in para 12 as extracted above which needs no repetition10. The interest liability which accrued during the relevant assessment year was not actually paid back by the Assessee rather was sought to be adjusted in the further loan of Rs. 8 crores which was obtained by the Industrial Development Bank of India12. In so concluding, this Court is supported by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Eicher Motors Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 315 ITR 312 (MP)   and subsequently, the judgment of the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in CIT v. Pennar Profiles Limited (ITA No. 289 of 2003, decided on February 11, 2015 (2015) 376 ITR 355 (T&AP)). In Eicher Motors, the court noted2:As observed supra, Explanation 3C has now in clear terms provided that such conversion of interest amount into loan shall not be deemed to be regarded as actually paid amount within the meaning of Section 43B. In view of clear legislative mandate removing this doubt and making the intention of the Legislature clear in relation to such transaction, it is not now necessary for this Court to interpret the unamended Section 43B in detail, nor is it necessary for this Court to take note of facts in detail as also the submissions urged in support of various contentions except to place reliance on Explanation 3C to Section 43B and answer the questions against the Assessee and in favour of RevenueThe court in Pennar Profiles Limited (supra) considered the decisions in Mahindra Nissan Allywin Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 493 (AP), Vinir Engineering P. Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 154 (Karn) and Eicher Motors (supra) and held as follows (page 359 of 376 ITR):In this backdrop, we have perused the provisions contained in Section 43B of the Act, in particular, Explanation 3C thereof, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1989. This provision was inserted in 2006 and hence, this Court in Mahindra Nissans case, had no occasion to deal with the case in the light of this provision. In so far as the Karnataka High Court is concerned, though this provision was existing on the date of judgment, it appears that it was not brought to the notice of learned Judges and, hence, the Division Bench proceeded to consider and decide the appeal of the Assessee without referring to Explanation 3C appended to Section 43B of the ActAs a matter of fact, from reading of Explanation 3C, in our opinion, the question as raised in the present appeals stands answered without further discussion. This provision was inserted for removal of doubts and it was declared that deduction of any sum, being interest payable under Clause (d) of Section 43B of the Act, shall be allowed if such interest has been actually paid and any interest referred to in that clause, which has been converted into a loan or borrowing, shall not be deemed to have been actually paid. Thus, the doubt stands removed in view of Explanation 3C. This provision was considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Eicher Motors Limited v. CIT to hold that in view of Explanation 3C appended to Section 43B with retrospective effect from April 1, 1989, conversion of interest amount into loan would not be deemed to be regarded as actually paid amount within the meaning of Section 43B of the Act.In the light of the introduction of Explanation 3C, this Court does not consider it necessary to discuss the precedents relied upon by the Assessee delivered prior to the enactment of Finance Act, 2006. As regards the decision in Shakti Spring Industries P. Ltd. [2013] 219 Taxman 124 (Jharkhand) (Mag.), the interest due in that case was offset against a subsidy which the Assessee was entitled to, and it did not involve an instance where it was converted into a loan or borrowing within the meaning of Explanation 3C. It is perhaps for this reason that Explanation 3C was not discussed13. In the impugned judgment, the Gujarat High Court has relied upon Bhagwati Autocast Ltd. (supra) which was not a case covered by Section 43B(d) rather was a case of Section 43B(a). The provisions of Section 43B covers a host of different situations. The statutory Explanation 3C inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 is squarely applicable in the facts of the present case. It appears that the attention of the High Court was not invited to Explanation 3C, we are, thus, of the view that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the deduction as claimed by the Assessee. The appellate authority, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the High Court erred in reversing the said disallowance.