9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the loss of Rs. 9,567 claimed by the assessee was a business loss or speculative loss. 2. Interpretation of section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding speculative transactions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of whether the loss of Rs. 9,567 claimed by the assessee was a business loss or speculative loss: The assessee, a proprietorship firm, entered into a contract on October 15, 1971, with Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. for the purchase of 152 bales of cloth. Only one bale was delivered, and the assessee requested the seller not to supply the remaining 151 bales. The seller debited the assessee's account with Rs. 9,567.36, which the assessee claimed as a business expenditure. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, categorizing the transaction as speculative since it was settled without actual delivery of goods. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this view, agreeing that the transaction fell under section 43(5) of the Act. However, the Tribunal held that the payment was for damages due to breach of contract, not a speculative transaction. The Tribunal concluded that the loss was a business loss and should be allowed as business expenditure. 2. Interpretation of section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding speculative transactions: Section 43(5) defines a speculative transaction as one where a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity is settled otherwise than by actual delivery. The Supreme Court in Davenport and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT clarified that "actual delivery" means real delivery, not notional. In CIT v. Shantilal P. Ltd., the Supreme Court distinguished between settlement of a contract and settlement of a claim for damages due to breach of contract. The court held that a contract is settled when it is performed or when the promisee accepts any satisfaction other than the original terms. In contrast, a breach of contract leads to a claim for damages under section 73 of the Contract Act. In CIT v. Dina Lal Gupta, the court emphasized that a settlement of a contract is different from a settlement of a dispute arising from a breach of contract. The latter cannot be regarded as a settlement of the contract for the purposes of section 43(5). Similarly, in CIT v. Maya Ram Jia Lal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana ruled that compensation paid for breach of contract could not be allowed as business loss if the contracts were speculative. In V. N. Sarsetty v. CIT, the Karnataka High Court held that payment in full settlement of a contract, instead of actual delivery, constituted a speculative transaction. Conclusion: Applying these principles, the court concluded that the transaction in question was speculative. The assessee agreed to pay Rs. 9,567.36 instead of taking delivery of the remaining 151 bales, indicating a settlement of the contract rather than a settlement of a dispute for damages. There was no evidence of a dispute or claim for damages due to breach of contract. Thus, the payment was deemed a speculative transaction under section 43(5), and the loss could not be allowed as business expenditure. Judgment: The court answered the question in the negative, stating that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the loss of Rs. 9,567.36 was a business loss and should be allowed as business expenditure. The reference was returned to the Tribunal for passing an appropriate order in light of this answer, with no order as to costs.
|
