9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Disallowance of payment as business expenditure under Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the disallowance of a payment made by the assessee to the Gun Carriage Factory (G.C.F.) as a business expenditure under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 7,364 as a business loss incurred in the supply of goods to the G.C.F. during the assessment year 1967-68. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, considering it a penalty imposed on the assessee for default in supplying goods as per the contract. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this view, leading the assessee to seek a reference to the High Court under section 256(2) of the Act. The Tribunal viewed the amount as a penalty for default in supply, not an expenditure incidental to the business. However, the High Court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 28(1) and 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT, the High Court emphasized that expenditure must be incurred for the purpose of business to be allowed as a deduction. In this case, the payment was made under the terms of a contract for earning profits from the business of supplying goods, meeting the test set by the Supreme Court. The High Court cited decisions from other High Courts supporting the deduction of payments like the one made by the assessee. These decisions highlighted that penalties or damages arising from breaches in the course of business were permissible deductions as commercial losses contemplated by the parties. The High Court distinguished two decisions relied on by the Tribunal, emphasizing that they were inapplicable to the present case due to different circumstances. The High Court concluded that the deduction claimed by the assessee was permissible under section 37(1) of the Act, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. In light of the analysis, the High Court held that the Tribunal erred in disallowing the payment made by the assessee to the G.C.F. as a business expenditure. The judgment favored the assessee, and no costs were awarded.
|
