Issue of deduction of Housing Loan Interest in case of co-owners decided by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Priya Mahajan [ITA 384/2015 dtd 26-11-2015] Facts: Plot purchased in the name of four cowners. Also they were co-borrowers of housing loan for construction of house. The assessee solely repaid entire interest and principal since the date of borrowing. While assessee claimed 100% deduction on housing loan interest, the AO restricted it to 25% having regard to assessee’s share of ownership Section 45 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 on Joint transfer for consideration.— Where immoveable property is transferred for consideration to two or more persons and such consideration is paid out of a fund belonging to them in common, they are, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, respectively entitled to interests in such property identical, as nearly as may be, with the interests to which they were respectively entitled in the fund; and, where such consideration is paid out of separate funds belonging to them respectively, they are, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, respectively entitled to interests in such property in proportion to the shares of the consideration which they respectively advanced. In the absence of evidence as to the interests in the fund to which they were respectively entitled, or as to the shares which they respectively advanced, such persons shall be presumed to be equally interested in the property. Held that : In present case though assessee has claimed to have paid entire consideration for purchase of plot/construction, no evidence has been produced. In the sale deed since shares of individuals are not specified. Section 45 of Transfer of Property Act shall apply. In the case of Saiyed Abdullah v. Ahmad AIR 1929 All. 817, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that 'in the absence of specification of the shares purchased by two persons in the sale deed, it must be held that both purchased equal shares. In present case, since the individual shares were not specified in the sale deed, the logical conclusion is that everyone had equal share in the property. Hence allowance of 25% of Housing Loan to assessee borrower is correct even if the assessee solely repaid entire interest and principal since the date of borrowing.

The issue of deductibility of Subsidies as profits derived from undertaking stands resolved by Supreme Court in its Landmark Judgment in Meghalya Steels on 09-03-2016

Exemption available under Chapter VI-A in respect of profits of industrial undertakings is available only in respect of income qualifying the litmus test of “profits or gain derived from undertaking”. The revenue and assessees have been locking their horns over the issue of Subsidies for years together as to whether or not they are covered by term ““profits or gain derived from undertaking”

                             In this article while an attempt has been made to construe real meaning of words “profit derived from”, it also deals with purpose test of subsidy and its relevance after recent amendments in Finance Act 2015 and Finance Bill 2016.

CBDT vide letter dated 08-03-2016 has clarified that the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed vide Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10-12-2015 for filing appeals before the ITAT would apply equally to cross objections under section 253(4) of the Act. Cross objections below this monetary limit, already filed, should be pursued for dismissal as withdrawn/not pressed. Filing of cross objections below the monetary limit may not be considered henceforth i.e. wef 08-03-2016

CBDT vide letter dated 11-03-2016 has reiterated that cases where tax has been deducted but not deposited by deductor, deductee assessee shall not be called upon to pay the demand because section 205 puts a bar on direct demand against the assessee in such cases. CBDT has issued similar instructions on 01-06-2015 also.