Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus V.S. Dempo & Company Ltd.,

2015 (4) TMI 1109 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Additions u/s 41(1) - Amounts received as a loan - loan was written off by the lender - Nature of receipt - revenue or capital receipt - Held that:- The loan was taken by the respondent from M/s. Eisenberg Inc. Japan when the Act did not apply to the State of Goa. It is also not disputed that the loan was for purchase of machinery and that there was a cessation of liability to repay the amount. Section 41 (1) of the Act would have no application in the present facts. This is for the reason that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

account and therefore no occasion to apply Section 41 (1) of the Act in respect of that could arise. The issue in fact stands concluded in favour of the respondent by the decision of this Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd (2003 (1) TMI 71 - BOMBAY High Court ) and M/s. Xylon Holding (2012 (9) TMI 449 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) in the context of the submission made by the revenue before us. It needs to be recorded that the Revenue has made no submission to establish that the amounts received as a loa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-1988. 2. This appeal was admitted on 27/11/2006 on the following substantial question of law: (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in holding that the nature of the amount of ₹ 50,96,000/- received by the assessee was capital in nature and not revenue? 3. For the assessment year 1987-1988, the respondent filed a return of income on 30/7/1987 declaring a total income of ₹ 50.02 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oration. It was also contended that the loan was taken for capital purposes at a time when the Act did not apply to the State of Goa. This was not accepted by the the Assessing Officer on account of the fact that in the assessment year 1967- 1968, the liability on the loan was increased by ₹ 19.07 on account of variation in the Exchange rate and this was allowed as revenue expenditure. Thus by an order dated 28 February 1990 under section 143 (3) of the Act the Assessing Officer added the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f change in rate of exchange was claimed as revenue expenditure was not being contested. The respondent accepted that the amounts allowed as revenue expenditure on account of variation in the rate of exchange should be added to its income under section 41 (1) of the Act. 6. The Tribunal by the impugned order only considered the original loan taken by the respondent. On consideration, the impugned order records that the amount was to be utilized by the respondent's subsidiary for purchase of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te of exchange, the same was allowed as revenue expenditure or added as income. It is on the above basis it is submitted that non obligation to return that loan would results in income to the respondent and stands covered by section 41(1) of the Act and is chargeable to tax. Thus, it is submitted that the substantial question of law as framed is to be answered in favour of the revenue by holding that the amount of ₹ 50.96 lakhs is revenue in nature and has to be a part of the respondent s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot be charged to income tax. It is further submitted that Section 41 (1) of the Act would have no application as held by this Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. reported in (2003) 261 ITR 501 (Bom.) and the decision in Income Tax Appeal no.3704 of 2010 in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs. M/s. Xylon Holdings P. Ltd. , rendered in 13/9/2012, wherein it has been held that when the loan has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version