1989 (9) TMI 384 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of Rs. 4,19,910 expenditure for a new project.
2. Deductibility of Rs. 11,805 guest house expenses.
3. Deductibility of Rs. 8,550 legal expenses.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deductibility of Rs. 4,19,910 Expenditure for a New Project
The Tribunal examined whether the expense of Rs. 4,19,910 written off was an allowable deduction in computing the business profit for the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee incurred these expenses for a new project, the Methyl Methacrylate Monomer Project, which was later abandoned. The Tribunal found that these expenses were of a capital nature as they were initial expenses for starting a new venture. The Tribunal held that the expenses were not of a revenue nature and could not be allowed as a deduction. The High Court upheld this view, stating that abortive expenditures of past years on a capital project cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure in a subsequent year when it was finally abandoned.

Issue 2: Deductibility of Rs. 11,805 Guest House Expenses
The Tribunal considered whether the expense of Rs. 11,805 was deductible in computing the business profit. The ITO disallowed these expenses, finding that they included items like beer, whisky, rum, and costly cigarettes, which were guest house expenses disallowable u/s 37(4) of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision, noting that the expenses were incurred for the benefit of outsiders and were not allowable under section 37(4). The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing that maintenance of a guest house includes provisions for food, drinks, and lodging, and thus these expenditures fall within the mischief of the phrase "maintenance of any residential accommodation in the nature of a guest house."

Issue 3: Deductibility of Rs. 8,550 Legal Expenses
The Tribunal examined whether the legal expense of Rs. 8,550 was deductible in computing the total income. It was stated that this aspect had been held in favor of the assessee in the case of CIT v. United Commercial Bank Ltd. The High Court answered this question in the negative and in favor of the assessee, indicating that the legal expenses were deductible.

Conclusion:
- Question 1: Answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue.
- Question 2: Answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue.
- Question 3: Answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee.

There will be no order as to costs.