Case: Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Core Health Care Ltd

computation of income under the head "Profits and Gains of Business". Section 43(1) defines "actual cost". The definition of "actual cost" has been amplified by excluding such portion of the cost as is met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority. Explanation 8 has been inserted in Section 43(1) by Finance Act, 1986 (23 of 1986), with retrospective effect from 1.4.74. It is important to note that the word "actual cost" would mean the whole cost and not the estimate of cost. "Actual cost" means nothing more than the cost accurately ascertained. The determination of actual cost in Section 43(1) has relevancy in relation to Section 32(depreciation allowance), Section 32A(investment allowance), Section 33 (development rebate allowance), and Section 41(balancing charge). "Actual cost" of an asset has no relevancy in relation to Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act. This reasoning flows from a bare reading of Section 43(1). Section 43 defines certain terms relevant to income from profits and gains of business and, therefore, the said section commences with the words "In Sections 28 to 41 and unless the context otherwise requires" "actual cost" shall mean the actual cost of the assets to the assessee, reducing by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority. In other words, Explanation 8 applies only to those Sections like Sections 32, 32A, 33 and 41 which deal with concepts like Depreciation. The concept of Depreciation is not there in Section 36(1)(iii). That is why the legislature has used the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Hence, Explanation 8 has no relevancy to Section 36(1)(iii). It has relevancy to the aforementioned enumerated sections. Therefore, in our view Explanation 8 has no application to the facts of the present case. 11. Before concluding on this point we may state that in this batch of civil appeals we are concerned with the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1997-98. A proviso has since been inserted in Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act. That proviso has been inserted by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004. Hence, the said proviso will not apply to the facts of the present case. Further, in our view the said proviso would operate prospectively. In this connection it may be noted that by the same Finance Act, 2003 insertions have been made by way of proviso in Section 36(1)(viia) by the same Finance Act which is also made with effect from 1.4.2004. Same is the position with regard to insertion of a sub-section after Section 90(2) and before the Explanation. This insertion also operates w.e.f. 1.4.04. In short, the above amendments have been made by Finance Act, 2003 and all the said amendments have been made operational w.e.f. 1.4.04. Therefore, the proviso inserted in Section 36(1)(iii) has to be read as prospectively and w.e.f. 1.4.04. In this case, we are concerned with the law as it existed prior to 1.4.2004. As stated above, we are not concerned with the interpretation or applicability of the said proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) w.e.f. 1.4.04 in the present case.12. In the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) this Court observed that interest paid on the borrowing utilized to bring into existence a fixed asset which has not gone into production, goes to add to the cost of installation of that asset. It was further observed that if the said borrowing was not "for the purpose of business" inasmuch as no business had come into existence, it must follow that it was made for the purpose of acquiring an asset which could be put to use for doing business, and hence interest paid on such borrowing would go to add to the cost of the assets so acquired.13. In our view the above observations have to be confined to the facts in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra). It was a case where the company had not yet started production when it borrowed the amount in question. The more appropriate decision applicable to the present case would be the judgment of this court in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras - (1966) 60 ITR 52 in which it has been observed that, for considering whether payment of interest on borrowing is revenue expenditure or not, the purpose for which the borrowing is made is irrelevant. In our view, Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act has to be read on its own terms. It is a Code by itself. Section 36(1)(iii) is attracted when the assessee borrows the capital for the purpose of his business. It does not matter whether the capital is borrowed in order to acquire a revenue asset or a capital asset, because of that the section requires is that the assessee must borrow the capital for the purpose of his business. This dichotomy between the borrowing of a loan and actual application thereof in the purchase of a capital asset, seems to proceed on the basis that a mere transaction of borrowing does not, by itself bring any new asset of enduring nature into existence, and that it is the transaction of investment of the borrowed capital in the purchase of a new asset which brings that asset into existence. The transaction of borrowing is not the same as the transaction of investment. If this dichotomy is kept in mind it becomes clear that the transaction of borrowing attracts the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii). Thus, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Calico Dyeing & Printing Works (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court India Cements Ltd. (supra) have been given with reference to the borrowings made for the purposes of a running business, while the decision of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) was given with reference to the borrowings which could not be treated as made for the purposes of business as no business had commenced in that case. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between the above decisions. CONCLUSIONS

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

Explanation:
1[ds]11. Before concluding on this point we may state that in this batch of civil appeals we are concerned with the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1997-98. A proviso has since been inserted in Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act. That proviso has been inserted by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 1.4.2004. Hence, the said proviso will not apply to the facts of the present case. Further, in our view the said proviso would operate prospectively. In this connection it may be noted that by the same Finance Act, 2003 insertions have been made by way of proviso in Section 36(1)(viia) by the same Finance Act which is also made with effect from 1.4.2004. Same is the position with regard to insertion of a sub-section after Section 90(2) and before the Explanation. This insertion also operates w.e.f. 1.4.04. In short, the above amendments have been made by Finance Act, 2003 and all the said amendments have been made operational w.e.f. 1.4.04. Therefore, the proviso inserted in Section 36(1)(iii) has to be read as prospectively and w.e.f. 1.4.04. In this case, we are concerned with the law as it existed prior to 1.4.2004. As stated above, we are not concerned with the interpretation or applicability of the said proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) w.e.f. 1.4.04 in the present case.12. In the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) this Court observed that interest paid on the borrowing utilized to bring into existence a fixed asset which has not gone into production, goes to add to the cost of installation of that asset. It was further observed that if the said borrowing was not "for the purpose of business" inasmuch as no business had come into existence, it must follow that it was made for the purpose of acquiring an asset which could be put to use for doing business, and hence interest paid on such borrowing would go to add to the cost of the assets so acquired.13. In our view the above observations have to be confined to the facts in the case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra). It was a case where the company had not yet started production when it borrowed the amount in question. The more appropriate decision applicable to the present case would be the judgment of this court in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras - (1966) 60 ITR 52  in which it has been observed that, for considering whether payment of interest on borrowing is revenue expenditure or not, the purpose for which the borrowing is made is irrelevant. In our view, Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act has to be read on its own terms. It is a Code by itself. Section 36(1)(iii) is attracted when the assessee borrows the capital for the purpose of his business. It does not matter whether the capital is borrowed in order to acquire a revenue asset or a capital asset, because of that the section requires is that the assessee must borrow the capital for the purpose of his business. This dichotomy between the borrowing of a loan and actual application thereof in the purchase of a capital asset, seems to proceed on the basis that a mere transaction of borrowing does not, by itself bring any new asset of enduring nature into existence, and that it is the transaction of investment of the borrowed capital in the purchase of a new asset which brings that asset into existence. The transaction of borrowing is not the same as the transaction of investment. If this dichotomy is kept in mind it becomes clear that the transaction of borrowing attracts the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii). Thus, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Calico Dyeing & Printing Works (supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court India Cements Ltd. (supra) have been given with reference to the borrowings made for the purposes of a running business, while the decision of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) was given with reference to the borrowings which could not be treated as made for the purposes of business as no business had commenced in that case. Therefore, there is no inconsistency between the abovelegislature has, therefore, made no distinction in Section 36(1)(iii) between "capital borrowed for a revenue purpose" and "capital borrowed for a capital purpose". An assessee is entitled to claim interest paid on borrowed capital provided that capital is used for business purpose irrespective of what may be the result of using the capital which the assessee has borrowed. Further, the words "actual cost" do not find place in Section 36(1)(iii) of the 1961 Act which otherwise find place in Sections 32, 32A etc of the 1961 Act. The expression "actual cost" is defined in Section 43(1) of the 1961 Act which is essentially a definition section which is subject to the context to the contrary.