2000 (8) TMI 20 - HC - Income Tax

Investment Allowance, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Export Market Development Allowance, Bank

Summary

Issues:
1. Bank guarantee commission expenditure
2. Exchange rate difference expenditure
3. Eligibility for weighted deduction under section 35B for export-related charges
4. Rejection of investment allowance claim under section 32A for specific items
5. Expenditure on issue of bonus shares

Bank Guarantee Commission Expenditure:
The Tribunal held that payment for bank guarantee commission was an expenditure of capital nature for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79. This decision was supported by relevant legal precedents.

Exchange Rate Difference Expenditure:
The Tribunal determined that expenditure due to exchange rate difference was of capital nature for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, in line with previous judicial decisions.

Weighted Deduction Under Section 35B:
The Tribunal ruled that export insurance, freight, packing charges, and stitching charges were not eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B for the assessment year 1978-79. This decision was based on established legal interpretations.

Rejection of Investment Allowance Claim Under Section 32A:
The Tribunal rejected the claim for investment allowance under section 32A for electrical installation, electrification in workshop, and extension of cable trench for the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee's argument for investment allowance on specific items was disallowed by the taxing authorities, citing that the items did not fulfill the criteria for investment allowance.

Expenditure on Issue of Bonus Shares:
The Tribunal held that expenditure in connection with the issue of bonus shares was of capital nature and not deductible in the computation of total income for the assessment year 1978-79, in accordance with legal precedents.

The judgment concluded that the only remaining question was related to the rejection of the investment allowance claim under section 32A for electrical installation and electrification in the workshop. After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the investment allowance claim for these specific items. The reference application was disposed of accordingly.