9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the payment of a non-refundable amount under a bareboat charter agreement is capital expenditure. 2. Whether the deduction for gratuity liability and depreciation allowances should be granted as per the Income-tax Act. Analysis: 1. The first issue involves the question of whether a non-refundable payment of Rs. 2,50,000 under a bareboat charter agreement should be considered capital expenditure. The court analyzed the terms of the charter agreement and determined that the payment was made for the grant of the charter itself, not for the use of the ship during the lease period. The court concluded that the payment was a capital outlay and not a revenue expenditure, thus ruling in favor of the Revenue against the assessee. 2. The second issue pertains to the deduction for gratuity liability and depreciation allowances under the Income-tax Act. The court referenced relevant Supreme Court decisions to address this issue. The court held that the deduction for gratuity liability should be allowed as per the decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 585, ruling in favor of the assessee against the Revenue. However, regarding the depreciation allowances, the court followed the decision in Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43, ruling against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. In conclusion, the court answered the issues raised in the judgment, ruling in favor of the Revenue on the first issue regarding the capital expenditure under the bareboat charter agreement. The court provided detailed reasoning for each issue, citing relevant legal precedents and interpretations of the Income-tax Act.
|
