1986 (8) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of Rs. 20 lakhs deposit as a business loss.
2. Deductibility of Rs. 4,31,352 for insurance premium, rates, taxes, and other expenses as business expenditure.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deductibility of Rs. 20 lakhs deposit as a business loss

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 20 lakhs deposit made by the assessee with Saksaria Cotton Mills Ltd. was allowable as a deduction. The Tribunal observed that the deposit was made as a security for the due performance of the terms of the agreement in the course of the assessee's business and was incidental to it. The Tribunal sustained the deletion of the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs, concluding that the loss arose in the carrying on of the assessee's business.

However, the High Court examined the nature of the deposit and concluded that the amount was not given in the course of ordinary money-lending operations but was a capital investment to acquire a profit-making apparatus. The Court emphasized that the assessee was not engaged in the business of manufacturing cotton and that the deposit was made to secure the right to operate the mills, thus constituting a capital expenditure. Consequently, the High Court held that the loss suffered by the assessee was on capital account and could not be deducted as a business loss. Question No. 1 was answered in the negative and against the assessee.

Issue 2: Deductibility of Rs. 4,31,352 for insurance premium, rates, taxes, and other expenses as business expenditure

The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 4,31,352, which included insurance premium, interest, and rates and taxes, as business expenditure u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal noted that these expenses were necessary for carrying on the assessee's business during the extended period of the leave and licence agreement.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing that the payments were made out of necessity and in the course of carrying on the business. The Court found no reason to depart from the Tribunal's view and answered Question No. 2 in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:

Question No. 1 was answered in the negative and against the assessee, while Question No. 2 was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. There was no order as to costs.