9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Accrual of Income for Retention Money 2. Disallowance of Interest on Loan to Director Summary: 1. Accrual of Income for Retention Money: The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 52,80,660, retained as retention money, accrued as income to the assessee during the relevant accounting year. The assessee, a manufacturer of instrumentation cables, argued that 10% of the payment withheld by customers as retention money did not represent income as its receipt was conditional upon the fulfillment of warranty obligations. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed, asserting that the right to receive the payment accrued when the goods were supplied and the retention money was merely a postponed receipt. The Tribunal examined the terms of the contract, noting that the 10% retention was contingent upon the completion of certain conditions, such as the submission of a performance guarantee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's obligation to rectify defects did not create an enforceable debt until the warranty period ended. The Tribunal referred to the case of CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (I.) P. Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 8 (Cal), where retention money was not considered accrued income until the completion of contractual obligations. The Tribunal concluded that the retention money did not accrue as income in the relevant year. 2. Disallowance of Interest on Loan to Director: The second issue was the disallowance of Rs. 8,400 out of the interest paid by the assessee to various banks, related to an advance of Rs. 56,000 given to a whole-time director, Sri S. G. Hoskote. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest, asserting that the advance was not related to the assessee's business. The Tribunal found that the director was a technocrat associated with the company since 1987 and did not hold any shares, thus not being substantially interested in the company. The Tribunal held that in the absence of any direct nexus between the loan and the interest paid on borrowings, the disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal referenced CIT v. Kishinchand Chellaram [1977] 109 ITR 569 (Bom) and concluded that the lending of a small sum to a director free of interest should be considered an act of commercial expediency. The disallowance was deleted. Separate Judgment by Third Member: There was a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Accountant Member regarding the first issue. The Judicial Member held that the retention money accrued as income, while the Accountant Member disagreed. The matter was referred to a Third Member, who agreed with the Accountant Member, concluding that the retention money should be excluded from the total income until the guarantee period was over. Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, with the disallowance of interest being deleted and the retention money not being considered accrued income for the relevant year.
|
