Assessee was engaged in business of asset management services. It had acquired a land for purpose of business by taking a loan Assessing Officer disallowed interest paid by assessee on loan on ground that loan amount was used by assessee for purchasing land which was an agricultural land and on which assessee had cultivated tapioca. High Court hed that land was shown as a business asset in balance sheet of company but said land was used for agricultural purposes, which yielded agricultural income. High Court held that since there was no evidence to show that land was used for purpose of business of assessee, interest paid in respect of loan borrowed for purchasing said land could not be allowed as a deduction under section 36(1)(iii). SLP filed against order of High court was dismissed as withdrawn (AY. 2012-13)
Mini Muthoottu Credit India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 305 Taxman 415 (SC) Editorial : Mini Muthoottu Credit India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 162 taxxmann.com 46 (Ker)(HC)
S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Land was used for agricultural purposes-High Court held that since there was no evidence to show that land was used for purpose of business of assessee, interest paid in respect of loan borrowed for purchasing said land could not be allowed as a deduction-SLP filed against order of High court was dismissed as withdrawn.[Art. 136]
Leave a Reply