|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 35 of 35 Records
-
1969 (6) TMI 16
Issues:
1. Allowability of wealth-tax paid as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Treatment of a sum paid for a guarantee commission as part of the actual cost of new machinery for the purpose of development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the allowability of wealth-tax paid by the assessee as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court answered this question in the negative, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax.
2. The second issue revolves around whether a sum paid for a guarantee commission should be considered as part of the actual cost of new machinery for claiming development rebate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee had paid Rs. 36,000 to a bank as a guarantee commission for securing a guarantee for machinery purchase. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, prompting a reference to the High Court.
3. The court referred to the provisions of section 10(2)(vib) which allow for development rebate on new machinery used for business purposes. The department argued that there is a distinction between interest paid on debentures and commission paid for a guarantee, contending that only interest directly related to the purchase of machinery can be included in the actual cost.
4. The court analyzed previous judgments, including Commissioner of Income-tax v. Standard Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd., emphasizing that "actual cost" includes all essential costs incurred to acquire a capital asset. The term "actual cost" was interpreted to mean the real cost incurred by the assessee in acquiring the asset.
5. Applying the principles from previous judgments, the court concluded that the expense of Rs. 36,000 paid for the guarantee commission was essential for acquiring the machinery, thus forming part of the assessee's actual cost. Consequently, the court answered the second question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee.
6. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. Justice SABYASACHI MUKHARJI concurred with the judgment delivered by Justice SANKAR PRASAD MITRA.
-
1969 (6) TMI 15
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalties under section 18A(9)/28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Validity of the assessee's estimates of income.
3. Obligation to file revised estimates.
4. Burden of proof on the revenue to establish conditions for penalties.
5. Consideration of the nature of the assessee's business and its impact on income estimation.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalties under Section 18A(9)/28(1)(c):
The primary issue in this case was whether the penalties imposed under section 18A(9)/28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were justified. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) had issued notices and imposed penalties on the assessee for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, citing that the assessee had furnished estimates of income that were untrue. The Tribunal upheld these penalties, leading to the reference to the High Court.
2. Validity of the Assessee's Estimates of Income:
The assessee, United Asian Traders Ltd., had filed estimates showing nil income for the accounting years 1958-59 and 1959-60, which were later found to be incorrect. The assessee argued that the estimates were based on the state of accounts at the time of filing and that the business's nature, dealing in jute and hemp, made it difficult to predict profits due to heavy price fluctuations. The Tribunal, however, noted that the assessee should have been aware of the income from credit and debit notes by March 15 of the subsequent year and failed to file revised estimates accordingly.
3. Obligation to File Revised Estimates:
The assessee contended that there was no obligation to file revised estimates under section 18A(2) and that failure to do so did not imply that the original estimates were knowingly false. The Tribunal and the High Court considered that while the proviso to section 18A(2) gave the assessee an option to file a revised return, the failure to exercise this option, combined with other factors, indicated that the assessee had reason to believe the original estimates were untrue.
4. Burden of Proof on the Revenue:
The assessee's counsel argued that section 18A(9) is penal in nature, and the burden of proof lies on the revenue to establish that the conditions for invoking the section were met. The High Court agreed that the revenue must prove that the assessee knew or had reason to believe the estimates were untrue. The Court examined whether there were materials before the ITO to be satisfied that the assessee's estimates were knowingly false.
5. Consideration of the Nature of the Assessee's Business:
The High Court took into account the nature of the assessee's business, which involved export in jute and hemp and the receipt of credit and debit notes. The Court noted that the receipt of such notes was a normal incident of the business, and the assessee should have been aware of the probable income by March 15 of the subsequent year. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee had reason to believe the estimates were untrue was upheld, considering the business's nature and the timing of the estimates.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in confirming the penalties imposed under section 18A(9)/28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court held that there were sufficient materials for the ITO to be satisfied that the assessee had filed estimates it knew or had reason to believe were untrue. The answer to the referred question was in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue, and the assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1969 (6) TMI 14
Ownership of premises - sale of property - in the case of a sale of immovable property a registered document is necessary to give effect to the sale - sale takes effect from the date of execution of the document - expression "income from property" used in ss. 6 and 9 of the IT Act 1922, refers to the income of the legal owner of the property who is the only person assessable to tax on the basis of the bonafide annual value thereof
-
1969 (6) TMI 13
Assessee, a private limited company advanced a loan to shareholder and a director of the company - whether the Tribunal was right in holding that clause (b) of the second proviso to paragraph D of Part II of the Finance Act, 1956, did not authorise the withdrawal of a part of the rebate granted to the assessee in respect of any sum advanced by the assessee - Held, yes
-
1969 (6) TMI 12
Notice of demand were issued to an association of persons u/s. 29 - following which, a certificate was forwarded under section 46(2)for recovery -petitioners pray to quash these notices and to forbid the Tax Recovery Officer from proceeding with the recovery
-
1969 (6) TMI 11
Issues:
Interpretation of managing agency commission deduction under Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis:
The case involved an assessee, a limited company with a sugar mill and agricultural operations, claiming a deduction of managing agency commission amounting to Rs. 48,735. The managing agents were entitled to a commission of 10% of the net profits, subject to a minimum payment. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a portion of the commission as it included profits from agricultural operations not assessable to income tax.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that any income attributable to profits from agricultural operations could not be deducted under section 10 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal reasoned that as the profit from agricultural activities was not taxable, the related expenditure could not be allowed in computing the profits of the sugar mill.
The matter was brought before the High Court, where the counsel for the assessee argued that no part of the managing agency remuneration could be linked to agricultural operations, citing precedents like Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Bank Ltd. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. These cases emphasized that if part of the income is exempt, the related expenditure cannot be disallowed. The counsel contended that the business expenses incurred should not be scrutinized based on their direct or indirect income-producing capacity.
The counsel for the revenue argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Bank Ltd. was based on the business being indivisible, which was not the case in the present scenario. However, the High Court, considering the terms of the managing agency agreement and the precedents cited, concluded that the disallowance made by the Tribunal was incorrect. The High Court held in favor of the assessee, citing the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, and answered the referred question in the negative.
The judgment was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J., with agreement from SANKAR PRASAD MITRA J., who concurred with the decision to answer the question in the negative. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
-
1969 (6) TMI 10
Certificates were issued under s. 222 of the New Act for the recovery of the amounts due - Power/competency of TRO - recovery proceeding commenced by one TRO named in the certificate could, be continued by another TRO of the same area - new certificate under s. 222 of the new Act with respect to such recovery is scarcely necessary
-
1969 (6) TMI 9
Issues:
Interpretation of whether property tax paid by a non-resident shipping company in Japan on its vessels is allowable as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the deductibility of property tax paid by a non-resident shipping company in Japan on its vessels. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the deduction claim, stating that the tax incidence fell on the assessee as the owner of properties, not as a trader. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction, reasoning that the property tax in Japan was leviable on assets used exclusively for business purposes, making it an allowable expenditure under section 10(2)(xv) of the Act.
The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the Japanese property tax was attracted when there was actual use of depreciable assets in a business. The Tribunal compared this tax to the Indian wealth-tax, stating that the payment of wealth-tax was not allowable as a business expenditure. However, they found that the property tax in Japan was allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, due to its connection to the business operations of the assessee.
The High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Japanese statute and compared them to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a similar case involving wealth-tax. The Court concluded that the property tax in Japan was levied on property owned by the assessee, not on the actual business activity. Therefore, the tax payment did not have a direct and intimate connection with the business itself, rendering it non-deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
The Court rejected the argument that the Tribunal should not have accepted the provisions of the Japanese statute without proper proof, stating that proof of foreign law is a factual matter. Since the revenue department did not raise any objections to the correctness of these provisions before, the Court declined to delve into this issue. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the revenue, denying the deduction claim for the property tax paid by the assessee in Japan on its vessels.
In conclusion, the High Court's decision centered on the interpretation of the Japanese property tax provisions and their alignment with the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the deductibility of taxes under the Indian Income-tax Act. The judgment clarified that for a tax to be deductible under section 10(2)(xv), there must be a direct and intimate connection between the expenditure and the business itself, which was not established in this case concerning the property tax paid in Japan.
-
1969 (6) TMI 7
Whether assessee to explain to show cause in order to get benefit of the proviso to Section 184(4) - petitioner himself was the applicant and he is expected to know the law which makes it clear that if the application had not been made within the time specified, it could only be entertained if sufficient cause is shown for the delay to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer. The assessee cannot convert his default into an occasion for pleading natural justice asking for an opportunity
-
1969 (6) TMI 6
Issues:
1. Refusal to entertain additional ground of appeal regarding correct rate of tax.
2. Assessment of income for nine months at rate applicable for twelve months.
3. Availability of material to support turnover assessment.
Analysis:
1. The court addressed the issue of refusing to entertain the additional ground of appeal regarding the correct rate of tax. The counsel agreed that this question was encompassed within another issue directed by the court to be referred, making a separate decision unnecessary.
2. The main issue revolved around whether the assessee's income for nine months could be rightly assessed at the rate applicable for twelve months. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Esthuri Aswathaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, where it was established that the length of the "previous year" need not be twelve months and the Income-tax Officer cannot vary the rate at which the income of the "previous year" is assessed once it is determined.
3. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act and the facts of the case. The Income-tax Officer had granted consent for a change in the "previous year" to cover a period of nine months, but imposed a condition to assess the income at the rates applicable for twelve months. The court held that the Officer exceeded his authority by imposing this condition, as the power to vary the rate of assessment is a legislative power and cannot be exercised by the Officer.
4. It was argued that the proviso to the Act empowered the Income-tax Officer to impose conditions as deemed fit, including assessing income at rates applicable for twelve months if the "previous year" falls below that duration. However, the court clarified that this discretion is limited to the period of the "previous year" and cannot extend to altering the rate of assessment beyond what is specified in the Finance Act.
5. Ultimately, the court answered the second question in favor of the assessee, stating that the income for the nine months ended on March 31, 1950, should be taxed only at the rates applicable for that specific period. The third question was answered in favor of the revenue due to the concession made by the assessee's counsel. The court ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the assessee along with the advocate's fee.
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the court's reasoning in arriving at its decision.
-
1969 (6) TMI 5
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the income in the hands of the assessee was income of a Hindu undivided family (HUF) or liable to taxation as an individual.
2. Examination of whether the saranjam was an impartible estate.
3. Consideration of historical partitions and their legal implications on the nature of the saranjam.
4. Application of section 9(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of whether the income in the hands of the assessee was income of a Hindu undivided family (HUF) or liable to taxation as an individual:
The primary issue was whether the income received by the assessee was to be taxed as an individual or as the karta of a Hindu undivided family. The assessee contended that the income was received as the karta of a HUF, while the department argued that the income was received by him as an individual. The assessment years in question were 1955-56, 1956-57, and 1957-58. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had accepted the assessee's contention for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57, directing that only the salary income be treated as individual income and the rest as HUF income. The Tribunal upheld this decision, recognizing the historical and factual basis for treating the income as HUF income.
2. Examination of whether the saranjam was an impartible estate:
The department argued that the saranjam was impartible and governed by the rule of primogeniture, making it individual property. However, the Tribunal found that the saranjam was partible from its inception and throughout its history. The original grant in 1764 by the Peshwas to Govindrao Haribhat included shares for his brother's sons, indicating a partible nature. Subsequent partitions among family members, recognized by the sovereign powers (Peshwas and later the British), further reinforced this finding. The Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concluded that the saranjam was not impartible, thus supporting the assessee's claim of HUF income.
3. Consideration of historical partitions and their legal implications on the nature of the saranjam:
The historical context showed that the saranjam was divided among family members multiple times with the consent of the ruling authorities, indicating its partible nature. Key historical events, such as the partition between Chintamanrao and his uncle Gangadharrao, and later partitions recognized by the British, demonstrated that the saranjam was treated as partible property. These partitions were not clandestine but officially sanctioned, further supporting the conclusion that the saranjam was partible. The Tribunal's detailed examination of historical records and memoirs confirmed this interpretation.
4. Application of section 9(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922:
Mr. Joshi, representing the Commissioner, argued that under section 9(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the holder of an impartible estate is deemed to be an individual owner for tax purposes. However, this argument hinged on proving that the estate was impartible. Since the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner found the saranjam to be partible, section 9(4) was not applicable. The Tribunal noted that the requirement for sovereign consent for partitions did not alter the partible nature of the estate under Hindu law.
Conclusion:
The High Court held that the saranjam was partible and the income received by the assessee was to be treated as HUF income, not individual income. The Tribunal's findings were upheld, and the question referred was answered in the affirmative. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the application for reference, with no order on the notice of motion and no order as to costs of the motion.
-
1969 (6) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of sundry advances of Rs. 17,400.
2. Deductibility of loans of Rs. 35,000.
3. Deductibility of payments made for settlement of claims of employees of Amco Ltd. amounting to Rs. 35,000.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deductibility of Sundry Advances of Rs. 17,400
The first issue pertains to whether the sum of Rs. 17,400 advanced by the assessee to Amco Ltd. for ensuring continuity of production can be claimed as a deductible expense. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim, arguing that clause 13 of the agreement made such advances optional and not obligatory, classifying them as capital losses rather than business losses. They also argued that these advances were made to facilitate the winding up of Amco Ltd. and were imprudent given the company's financial condition.
The Tribunal, however, negated these contentions, stating that the advances were made in the normal course of business. The Tribunal held that the absence of a binding obligation under clause 13 did not affect the claim, as the loss was incidental to the business. The Tribunal's view was supported by the established custom in Bombay for managing agents to finance companies they manage, as recognized in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tata Sons Ltd.
In the arguments before the court, it was emphasized that the managing agents had a business justification for making these advances to ensure the continuity of Amco Ltd.'s production, even though they were not legally obliged to do so. The court concluded that the advances were a normal business decision and were made wholly and exclusively in the interest of the assessee's business.
2. Deductibility of Loans of Rs. 35,000
The second issue concerns the deductibility of loans amounting to Rs. 35,000. The counsel for the Commissioner did not advance any arguments against this item, acknowledging that these were pure loans advanced by the managing agents to the company in the course of their business. Consequently, the court found no dispute in allowing this amount as a deductible expense.
3. Deductibility of Payments Made for Settlement of Claims of Employees of Amco Ltd. Amounting to Rs. 35,000
The third issue involves the deductibility of Rs. 35,000 paid by the assessee for the settlement of claims of Amco Ltd.'s employees. The payment was made under a guarantee given to the State Bank of India, Bangalore, to satisfy the Mysore Government's condition for transferring Amco Ltd.'s immovable property to another party. This guarantee was necessary to avoid a larger financial loss for the assessee, who had already guaranteed a Rs. 3 1/2 lakhs overdraft to the Central Bank of India.
The court found that the payment was a prudent business decision made to avoid a greater loss and was necessary to fulfil the terms of a settlement with the workers. The court rejected the department's contention that the payment was made to facilitate the winding up of Amco Ltd. or to release the property from the Mysore Government. Instead, it held that the payment was made in the normal course of business and was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business.
The court also noted that the settlement agreement with the workers was binding under the Industrial Disputes Act, making the payment a legal obligation for the assessee. Thus, the payment was considered a business expenditure.
Conclusion
The court answered both questions in the affirmative, allowing the deductions for the sundry advances of Rs. 17,400 and the payment of Rs. 35,000 for the settlement of employee claims. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1969 (6) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption envisaged in the third proviso to section 23A(1)?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 23A(1) of the Act was rightly applied to the assessee-company?
3. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that before the Income-tax Officer can consider whether having regard to the loss incurred by the company in earlier years or to the smallness of the profit the payment of a dividend or a larger dividend than that declared would be unreasonable, the assessee must distribute by way of dividend the whole of its commercial profit?
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Exemption Under Third Proviso to Section 23A(1)
The assessee, a public limited company, claimed exemption from the operation of section 23A(1) on the grounds that it was a company in which the public were substantially interested and a subsidiary of a company in which the public were substantially interested. The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee was not entitled to this exemption because 99.5% of its shares were held by the Premier Construction Company, which constituted a block of voting power. According to the Supreme Court's interpretation in Raghuvanshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the term "public" does not include a single shareholder or a group acting in concert holding more than 75% of the voting power. Therefore, the assessee did not satisfy the requirement that shares carrying not less than 25% of the voting power be held unconditionally and beneficially by the public.
Issue 2: Application of Section 23A(1)
The Tribunal confirmed that section 23A(1) was rightly applied to the assessee-company. The assessee's argument that it was unreasonable to expect a larger dividend due to the smallness of profits was dismissed. The Tribunal pointed out that the assessee had a distributable surplus of Rs. 10,21,734, which was far in excess of the Rs. 7 lakhs declared as dividend. The Tribunal emphasized that for an order under section 23A to be avoided on the grounds of smallness of profits, the assessee must have declared the whole of the commercial profits, not just 60% thereof.
Issue 3: Tribunal's Error on Commercial Profits
The Tribunal's view that the assessee must distribute the whole of its commercial profits before claiming that a higher dividend would be unreasonable was found to be incorrect. The court held that this condition was not a prerequisite for the assessee to raise the claim. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in its interpretation, and this issue was decided in favor of the assessee.
Conclusion:
The court answered the first question in the negative, indicating that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under the third proviso to section 23A(1). The second question was answered in the affirmative, affirming that section 23A(1) was rightly applied to the assessee-company. The third question was also answered in the affirmative, acknowledging that the Tribunal erred in its requirement for the assessee to distribute the whole of its commercial profits. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the Commissioner.
-
1969 (6) TMI 2
Issues:
- Whether the interest paid by the assessee on its borrowing during the assessment years 1953-54 to 1956-57 was an admissible deduction under the Indian Income-tax Act?
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay addressed the issue of whether the interest paid by the assessee on its borrowing during the assessment years 1953-54 to 1956-57 was an admissible deduction under the Indian Income-tax Act. The assessee, a publisher of a Gujarati newspaper, had common expenditure arrangements with two sister concerns. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a portion of the interest claimed by the assessee, arguing that since the assessee did not charge interest on balances due from the sister concerns, it should not be allowed a deduction on the interest paid to creditors. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, stating that the balances due were considered loans advanced by the assessee. However, the Tribunal disagreed, allowing the full interest amount as a deduction under section 10(2)(iii).
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the balances due were not loans advanced by the assessee but were related to common expenditure arrangements. The court clarified that the borrowed capital was used for the business, not for advancing loans to the sister concerns. It cited precedent to support the assessee's right to claim interest deduction if the borrowed capital was used for business purposes, regardless of profitability. The court rejected the Income-tax Officer's argument that the assessee should have collected outstandings to reduce borrowing, stating that the relevant conditions for claiming interest deduction were borrowing for business purposes and actual payment of interest.
The court criticized the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's view that the assessee diverted borrowed capital for loans to sister concerns, asserting that it was not supported by the facts. Referring to legal precedents, the court reiterated that the availability of resources at the time of borrowing did not affect the deduction claim if the interest was paid on borrowed capital for business purposes. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the interest paid on borrowed capital was an allowable deduction under section 10(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the assessee, and the question was answered in the affirmative.
-
1969 (6) TMI 1
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss of Rs. 95,148 due to the devaluation of Pakistani currency is an allowable loss for tax purposes.
2. The nature of the amount standing to the credit of the assessee in the books of Mehboob Pictures at Karachi.
3. Whether the amount can be treated as a business loss or a capital asset.
4. If the amount can be claimed as a bad debt under section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Allowable Loss Due to Devaluation:
The primary issue was whether the amount of Rs. 95,148, representing the loss on conversion of unremitted profit from Pakistani rupees to Indian rupees, was an allowable loss in the assessments. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the claim on the ground that the loss could only arise when the money was actually remitted to India. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this but added that the loss was a depreciation of a capital asset, not a trading loss.
2. Nature of the Amount:
The Tribunal reversed the decisions of the lower authorities, stating that the amount should be treated as a business loss because the assessee had been taxed on profits from similar conversions in the past. The Tribunal emphasized that since the profits were taxed, the loss due to devaluation should also be allowed. However, the High Court found this reasoning unconvincing, stating that equitable considerations are irrelevant in tax matters. The court focused on the nature of the amount standing to the credit of the assessee in the books of Mehboob Pictures at Karachi.
3. Business Loss or Capital Asset:
The High Court held that the amount could not be considered a business asset. The court noted that the profits earned during the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, and part of 1954-55 were fully remitted to India, leaving only the balance of 1951-52 in Pakistan. This amount had already been taxed and could not be considered business profits. The court concluded that the amount was a capital asset, not a business asset, and thus, the loss due to devaluation could not be claimed as a business loss.
4. Claim as Bad Debt:
The assessee alternatively argued that the amount should be allowed as a deduction on account of bad debt. The court rejected this argument, stating that the relationship between the assessee and Mehboob Pictures was that of principal and agent, not debtor and creditor. The amount was held by the agent for the benefit of the principal, and the agent had not repudiated the agency. The court also noted that the debt had not become bad in the commercial sense; it had merely undergone a diminution in value due to devaluation. Hence, it could not be claimed as a bad debt under section 10(2)(xi) of the Income-tax Act.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the amount of Rs. 95,148 could not be considered an allowable loss for tax purposes. The court held that the amount was a capital asset and not a business asset, and the loss due to devaluation could not be claimed as a business loss or a bad debt. The question referred was answered in the negative, and the assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the Commissioner.
|
9911796707
