1977 (6) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the loss of Rs. 27,43,807 arising on the sale of gas cylinders was allowable as a revenue expenditure under the classification "Mineral oil concerns" or under section 32(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. Whether the shortfall in the development rebate reserve account could be made up by the excess provision for development rebate reserve created in the earlier years, allowing the full amount of development rebate of Rs. 24,15,622.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowability of Loss on Sale of Gas Cylinders:

The company, a distributor of petroleum products, sold iron cylinders used for distributing gas to consumers. The company claimed a loss of Rs. 27,43,807 on the sale of these cylinders, asserting they were "returnable packages" under item M(2)(2)(d)(1) of Part I of Appendix 1 to rule 5 of the I.T. Rules, 1962, and sought deduction as revenue expenditure or under section 32(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO disallowed this claim. The Tribunal allowed the claim under rule 5 but did not address section 32(1)(iii).

Upon review, it was determined that the Tribunal improperly framed the question, as rule 5 and item M(2)(2)(d)(1) do not address losses from the sale of returnable packages. The term "actually used up" means packages rendered unserviceable. The cylinders were not sold as scrap but continued to be used, thus not "actually used up." Consequently, the loss could not be allowed as revenue expenditure under rule 5 or as a loss under section 32(1)(iii). The court reframed and answered the question in the negative, favoring the revenue.

2. Shortfall in Development Rebate Reserve Account:

The company claimed a development rebate of Rs. 24,15,622 but had a shortfall of Rs. 34,827 in the reserve account. The Tribunal allowed the full rebate despite the shortfall. The court reframed the question to focus on whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the rebate despite the shortfall.

Section 34(3)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, mandates that 75% of the development rebate must be credited to a reserve account. The company did not make up the shortfall by transferring excess amounts from earlier years. The court noted that compliance with section 34(3)(a) is essential to earn the rebate, and the company did not meet this requirement. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to allow the rebate was incorrect. The court answered the question in the negative, favoring the revenue.

Conclusion:

The court ruled that the loss on the sale of gas cylinders was not allowable as revenue expenditure or under section 32(1)(iii). Additionally, the shortfall in the development rebate reserve account could not be made up by excess provisions from earlier years, and the full rebate claimed was not allowable. Both issues were decided in favor of the revenue, with no order as to costs.