9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of whether the loss of Rs. 27,420 sustained by the assessee on the sale of Government Loan Bonds is a capital loss or revenue loss.
Summary: The High Court of Orissa considered an application by the revenue under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act of 1961 regarding the classification of a loss incurred by the assessee on the sale of Government Loan Bonds. The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the sale of furniture and a rolling mill business, claimed a loss of Rs. 29,247, with Rs. 27,420 attributed to the sale of Government Loan Bonds. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim, deeming it a capital investment. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) upheld this decision, but the Tribunal member ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the loss as a revenue expenditure due to a direct nexus between the purchase of securities and business gains. The High Court concurred, emphasizing the factual evidence supporting the revenue loss classification. The Court rejected the argument that the purchase of Government Loan Bonds constituted a capital investment, affirming the loss as a revenue loss. The Court referenced a previous case to distinguish between capital and revenue losses based on the nature of the investment and its connection to the existing business. Despite acknowledging the principle outlined in the precedent case, the Court emphasized the factual determination in the present case. Noting the timing of the investment and business acquisition, the Court concluded that the loss on Government Loan Bonds was a revenue loss, as it directly contributed to business growth in the same year. The Court dismissed the contention that the investment was capital in nature, highlighting the factual findings supporting the revenue loss classification. In conclusion, the High Court of Orissa determined that the loss of Rs. 27,420 incurred by the assessee on the sale of Government Loan Bonds was a revenue loss, based on the direct link between the investment and business expansion in the same year. The Court made no order regarding costs, considering the assessee's lack of representation during the hearing. Both judges, N. K. DAS and R. N. MISHRA, concurred with the decision.
|
