TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 lakhs has not been challenged by the Department, the Revenue shall be entitled to relief to the extent of ₹ 34 lakhs only as not qualified for inclusion in the capital base. - - - - - Dated:- 3-3-1993 - Judge(s) : KULDIP SINGH., N. M. KASLIWAL JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J. -The respondent-company obtained a term loan of Rs. 50 lakhs from the National Grindlays Bank Ltd. The agreement dated August 1, 1964, provided for repayment of the loan in five instalments. The last instalment was to be paid on July 31, 1971. Thus, the loan was to be paid back within the period of seven years from the date of the agreement. The question for our consideration is whether the repayment under the agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try outside India : Provided that such moneys are borrowed for the creation of capital asset in India and the agreement under which such moneys are borrowed provides for the repayment thereof during a period of not less than seven years. . . . " The agreement dated August 1, 1964, provided for repayment of the loan in five instalments as follows: Rs. 1. On July 31, 1967 5 lakhs 2. On July 31, 1968 7 lakhs 3. On July 31, 1969 10 lakhs 4. On July 31, 1970 12 lakhs 5. On July 31, 1971 16 lakhs The respondent-company included a proportionate amount of the term loan of Rs. 50,00,000 in its capital base and claimed statutory percentage of the said amount as deduction in the calculation of its chargeable profits assessable f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This appeal by special leave is by the Incometax Department against the judgment of the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no part of the term loan of Rs. 50,00,000 qualified for inclusion in the capital base because the provisions of rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to the Act were not satisfied. According to him, under the term loan agreement dated August 1, 1964, the last instalment was to be paid on July 31, 1971, and as such the period of repayment was less than seven years. He further contended that in the context the expression "during a period of not less than seven years", means a period of more than seven years. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the term loan was payab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to the Act the repayment of the borrowed money must be during a period which is more than seven years. We find support in the view taken by us in the following cases. In Ramanasari v. Muthusami Naik [1906] ILR 30 Mad 248, section 18 of the Madras Rent Recovery Act, 1865 (VIII of 1865 ), required that, in fixing the day of sale, not less than seven days must be allowed " from the time of the public notice and not less than 30 days from the date of distraint ". The sale was held on the 13th February, but the notice was published on 6th February. It was held that "not less than" means the same as " clear " and seven whole days must elapse between the day of the notice and the day fixed for sale. In Rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
