9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether damages paid for breach of contract for the purchase of a capital asset can be considered as a revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved the assessee, a private limited company, who cancelled an order with a corporation for a horizontal boring machine, resulting in damages paid for interest and storage charges. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, citing the capital nature of the expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the decision, but the Tribunal allowed the claim. The Department argued that for a deduction under section 37, expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and not relate to capital expenditure, citing legal precedents. The Department relied on various cases such as Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Edward Keventer (S.) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, Dalmia Dadri Cements Ltd. v. CIT, New Central Jute Mills Ltd. v. CIT, and Fancy Corporation Ltd. v. CIT to support its contention that damages for breach of contract related to capital assets are capital expenditures and not allowable deductions under section 37. These cases highlighted instances where payments for breach of contracts were considered capital expenditures due to their nature and purpose. On the other hand, the assessee argued that the damages should be considered as revenue expenditure, relying on cases like Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Seshasayee Bros. Pvt. Ltd., where expenses incurred for the purpose of business operations and profit-making were treated as revenue expenditures. The assessee contended that the damages paid were part of the business promotion and should be allowed as a deduction under section 37. The court analyzed the facts of the case, emphasizing that the expenditure should be wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of business to be allowed under section 37. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT, the court held that damages paid for breach of contract for a capital asset cannot be considered revenue expenditure. The court differentiated the purpose of the expenditure in the present case from cases where expenses were incurred for profit-earning apparatus, leading to the conclusion that the damages paid were not allowable as a revenue expenditure. Consequently, the court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the Department, with no order as to costs.
|
