9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 29,334 u/s 40A(5). 2. Addition of Rs. 5,85,093 on account of price difference paid for settlement of contract otherwise than by actual delivery of goods. Summary: Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 29,334 u/s 40A(5) The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,334 u/s 40A(5). The controversy involved in this issue is covered by the decision of the court in CIT v. Indokem Pvt. Ltd. [1981] 132 ITR 125. Consequently, the court answered this question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 5,85,093 on Account of Price Difference The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 5,85,093. The assessee argued that this issue is covered by the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Shantilal P. Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 57 and other relevant decisions. The Revenue contended that the payments were not "liquidated damages" but rather payments made in fulfilment of a contract settled otherwise than by actual delivery of goods, thus falling under "speculative transaction" as defined in section 43(5) of the Act. The court examined the distinction between "settlement of the contract otherwise than by actual delivery of the goods" and "breach of contract" as explained in CIT v. Shantilal P. Ltd. The court concluded that the payments made by the assessee were by way of damages for breach of contract and not speculative transactions. The court referenced section 73 of the Contract Act, which deals with compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract, and determined that the payments were compensatory in nature. The court also considered whether the transactions could be classified as "speculation business" under Explanation 2 to section 28 and section 73 of the Act. It concluded that the transactions did not constitute a business and were not characterized by features of trade or business. Therefore, the payment of Rs. 5,85,093 could not be treated as a loss from speculation business. The court answered question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs was made.
|
