9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of Rs. 10,22,463 demanded under Section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act. 2. Deductibility of Rs. 2,56,762 demanded under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act. 3. Deductibility of Rs. 20,45,384 reserved for anticipated future tax liability. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deductibility of Rs. 10,22,463 Demanded Under Section 18A of the Indian Income-tax Act: The assessee, a non-resident company, claimed Rs. 10,22,463 as a deductible debt under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Wealth-tax Officer disallowed this deduction, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, stating that the assessee could repudiate the tax by submitting its own estimate of income under Section 18A(2). However, the Judicial Member of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that this amount was deductible, a view later supported by the Tribunal's President. The High Court agreed, stating that once a notice of demand is issued, the tax liability becomes a "debt owed" under Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act. Thus, the sum of Rs. 10,22,463 was deemed deductible. 2. Deductibility of Rs. 2,56,762 Demanded Under Section 29 of the Indian Income-tax Act: The assessee also claimed Rs. 2,56,762 as a deductible debt, which was disallowed by the Wealth-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the grounds that the collection was postponed due to a claim for double income-tax relief. The Judicial Member of the Tribunal allowed this deduction, and the President of the Tribunal concurred. The High Court upheld this view, noting that the issuance of a notice of demand under Section 29 creates a debt owed by the assessee. Therefore, the sum of Rs. 2,56,762 was also deemed deductible. 3. Deductibility of Rs. 20,45,384 Reserved for Anticipated Future Tax Liability: The assessee claimed Rs. 20,45,384 as a reserve for anticipated future tax liability. The Wealth-tax Officer, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and Judicial Member of the Tribunal disallowed this deduction, stating it was not a real and present liability. The Accountant Member of the Tribunal disagreed, but the High Court sided with the Judicial Member. The Court emphasized that a debt must be an "ascertained liquidated, quantified obligation enforceable in praesenti or in futuro." Since the amount was merely a provision for an anticipated liability and not a debt due, it did not qualify for deduction under Section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the amounts of Rs. 10,22,463 and Rs. 2,56,762 were deductible as they constituted debts owed due to the issuance of notices of demand. However, the sum of Rs. 20,45,384, being a reserve for anticipated future tax liability, was not deductible as it did not constitute a debt owed. The question was thus answered partly in favor of the assessee and partly in favor of the department, with no order as to costs.
|
