1986 (8) TMI 4 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of loss of irrecoverable advance in computing profits.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involves a dispute over the allowability of a Rs. 20,00,000 advance given to Saksaria Cotton Mills Limited for modernization. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim as the amount was not considered in previous income computations and was not a bad debt in the relevant year. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction as revenue expenditure, considering it a loss incurred in the course of the cotton business. The Tribunal found that the advance was for modernization, not a business loss, and was treated as a capital investment by the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the advance resulted in the improvement of the plant and machinery of Saksaria Cotton Mills, not the business of the assessee. The Tribunal considered the advance as seeking improvement in the source of income, not a business loss. The Tribunal emphasized that the loan was given for the purpose of the assessee's business but determined it to be on capital account, thus disallowing it as a deduction in computing commercial profit.

The Tribunal highlighted that the loan was not a simple money-lending transaction for interest but was treated as a capital investment by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction was on capital account, not revenue account, based on the resolution passed by the board of directors of the assessee-company. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments emphasizing that losses on capital account cannot be claimed as business losses.

The Tribunal differentiated cases where deductions were allowed for money lent in the usual course of business by managing agencies to managed companies, which did not apply in this scenario. The Tribunal concluded that the loan was on capital account, as evidenced by the resolution passed by the board of directors, and therefore, not allowable as a deduction in computing commercial profit. The judgment was in favor of the Revenue, with no costs awarded.

The judgment was agreed upon by both judges, and the retirement of one judge did not impact the validity of the judgment. The principles embodied in the rules allowed the judgment to be filed as the judgment of the Division Bench.