9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss due to fluctuations in the rate of exchange at the time of remitting loan instalments for purchasing capital assets is admissible as revenue expense while computing business income. Summary: 1. Admissibility of Loss as Revenue Expense: The primary issue was whether the loss of Rs. 13,59,790 suffered due to fluctuations in the exchange rate while remitting loan instalments for purchasing capital assets is admissible as a revenue expense. The assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of aluminium, claimed this amount as a revenue expense incidental to its business. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, treating it as a capital expense. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, treating the expenditure as a revenue expense. This led to the reference u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. 2. Applicability of Section 43A: The Revenue argued that u/s 43A of the Act, any increase or reduction in liability due to exchange rate changes for loans taken to acquire capital assets should be treated as capital expenditure, affecting the actual cost of the asset. The assessee contended that section 43A only applies to devaluation cases, not to day-to-day fluctuations in exchange rates. 3. Nature of the Loss: The court examined whether the loss was related to a trading asset or a capital asset. It concluded that the nature of the loss depends on whether it pertains to circulating capital or fixed capital. Losses related to circulating capital are trading losses, while those related to fixed capital are capital losses. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1, which emphasized that the cause of the loss (whether due to market fluctuations or devaluation) is immaterial; what matters is whether the loss pertains to a trading or capital asset. 4. Supreme Court Precedents: The court also referred to CIT v. Arvind Mills Ltd. [1992] 193 ITR 255, where the Supreme Court held that increases or decreases in liability due to exchange rate fluctuations should modify the actual cost of the asset for depreciation purposes, as per section 43A. Conclusion: The court concluded that the loss of Rs. 13,59,790 due to exchange rate fluctuations while remitting loan instalments for purchasing a capital asset is a capital loss. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to deduct this amount in computing its business income. However, this amount will modify the actual cost of the asset for calculating depreciation u/s 43A of the Act. The question referred was answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.
|
