9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1989 (8) TMI 70 - HC - Income TaxAdvance Tax, Appeal To AAC, Business, Business Expenditure, Business Loss, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Provident Fund
Issues Involved:
1. Taxation of Rs. 4,72,742 received for surrender of import entitlements. 2. Addition of Rs. 43,000 to the book results of the Pondicherry Unit. 3. Disallowance of Rs. 4,498 loss on the sale of Government securities. 4. Refusal to entertain an additional ground for allowance of Rs. 45,930 on account of differential excise duty. 5. Levy of interest under section 18A(6). 6. Deduction of Rs. 1,63,609 as a trade liability. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Taxation of Rs. 4,72,742 Received for Surrender of Import Entitlements The court addressed whether the sum of Rs. 4,72,742 received by the assessee for surrendering import entitlements under the Cotton Textile Export Incentive Scheme was rightly taxed as business income. The assessee argued that this amount was a capital receipt and not liable to tax. However, referencing a previous decision in CIT v. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. [1980] 121 ITR 747, the court held that the amount was a revenue receipt, directly resulting from the business of manufacturing and exporting cloth and yarn. Thus, the court answered in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the amount was taxable as business income. Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 43,000 to the Book Results of the Pondicherry Unit The court examined the addition of Rs. 43,000 to the assessee's income due to discrepancies between the stock value declared to the bank and the actual stock held. The Tribunal upheld this addition based on similar discrepancies noted in the previous year, which had been affirmed by the court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 33. Consequently, the court answered in favor of the Revenue, validating the addition. Issue 3: Disallowance of Rs. 4,498 Loss on the Sale of Government Securities The assessee claimed a business loss of Rs. 4,498 on the sale of Government securities, which was disallowed as a capital loss. The court noted that the assessee was not a dealer in shares and securities and found no nexus between the loss and the business carried on. Citing Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 132 ITR 666, the court held that the loss was not a business loss and answered in favor of the Revenue. Issue 4: Refusal to Entertain an Additional Ground for Allowance of Rs. 45,930 on Account of Differential Excise Duty The court considered whether the Tribunal erred in refusing to entertain an additional ground for the allowance of Rs. 45,930 on account of differential excise duty. The Tribunal had rejected this additional ground because it was not raised before the lower authorities. However, referencing CIT v. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) and CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC), the court held that the Tribunal has the discretion to allow new grounds in appropriate cases. The court found that the Tribunal erred in not allowing the additional ground and answered in favor of the assessee. Issue 5: Levy of Interest under Section 18A(6) The court deliberated on whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that no appeal lay against the interest charged under section 18A(6). The Tribunal's decision was supported by a Full Bench decision in CIT v. Geeta Ram Kali Ram [1980] 121 ITR 708. Consequently, the court answered in favor of the Revenue, affirming that no appeal was maintainable. Issue 6: Deduction of Rs. 1,63,609 as a Trade Liability The court reviewed whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing a deduction of Rs. 1,63,609 as a trade liability. The Tribunal had allowed this deduction, reducing the original claim of Rs. 1,80,000, which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the grounds of it being a penalty and not relating to the year in dispute. Referencing Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 387, the court held that damages paid for delayed provident fund contributions are not admissible deductions. Thus, the court answered in favor of the Revenue. Conclusion: - Question 1: In the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue. - Question 2: In the negative, in favor of the Revenue. - Question 3: In the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue. - Question 4: In the affirmative, in favor of the assessee. - Question 5: In the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue. - Question 6: In the negative, in favor of the Revenue. In view of the divided success, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
|
