1987 (2) TMI 7 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of loss due to exchange fluctuations in purchasing machinery from abroad in computing income.
2. Deduction of surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act as business expenditure or expenditure incidental to carrying on business.

Analysis:

*Issue 1:*
The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 10,485 incurred due to exchange fluctuations in purchasing machinery from abroad as a revenue expenditure. However, the Income-tax Officer, the appeal tribunal, and the High Court held that the amount expended to acquire assets from a foreign country for business purposes is capital in nature and cannot be treated as revenue expenditure. Section 43A of the Income-tax Act specifically addresses fluctuation in exchange rates concerning the acquisition of assets, indicating that such amounts are to be considered as capital expenditure. The court cited precedents like CIT v. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd. and CIT v. South India Viscose Ltd., supporting the capital nature of such expenses. Consequently, the deduction was disallowed, ruling in favor of the Revenue.

*Issue 2:*
Regarding the deduction of surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, the court referred to a previous decision in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT, where it was held that such surtax payments cannot be claimed as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act or as expenditure incidental to carrying on business under section 28. The court answered this question against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. The court also granted leave to the assessee to appeal to the Supreme Court on this matter, as seen in similar cases like T. T. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT and Amco Batteries Ltd. v. CIT.

In conclusion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the loss due to exchange fluctuations in purchasing machinery from abroad cannot be claimed as a revenue expenditure and that surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act is not deductible as business expenditure. The judgment was delivered by K. Ramaswamy J., with reference to relevant sections of the Income-tax Act and established case law.