1993 (1) TMI 39 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction of exchange difference from the gross dividend income under section 57(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?
- Whether the assessee's real income taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 should include the deduction claimed?
- Whether the gross dividend income without the deduction is taxable in the hands of the assessee under section 8(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?

Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred three questions to the High Court for opinion. The assessee, a non-resident company, received dividend income from its Indian subsidiary. The dispute arose regarding the deduction of an exchange difference of Rs. 60,151 from the gross dividend income of Rs. 87,00,000. The assessee claimed that the difference should be allowed as expenses for remittance or for earning the dividend income under relevant sections of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, but the Tribunal accepted it, stating that the income should be based on the net amount received by the assessee in the U.S. after conversion into rupees. The Tribunal allowed the deduction under section 57(i) of the Act. The Revenue challenged this decision, leading to the reference to the High Court.

The Revenue argued that the income accrued in Indian rupees, so rule 115 for conversion did not apply. They contended that the claimed amount did not fall under the provisions of sections 57(i) or 57(iii) of the Act. The assessee's counsel maintained that the income should be based on the amount received in U.S. dollars and converted into rupees, and the claimed amount should be treated as remuneration for realizing the dividend under section 57(i) or as a deductible expense under section 57(iii).

The High Court held that the income accrued to the assessee in Indian rupees, and rule 115 did not apply as it pertains to foreign currency income. The Court analyzed sections 57(i) and 57(iii) and concluded that the claimed difference did not meet the criteria for deduction under these sections. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the deduction claimed did not align with the provisions of section 57(i) or 57(iii. Therefore, the first and second questions were answered against the assessee. As the answers to the first two questions favored the Revenue, the Court did not address the third question. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.