9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for deduction of capital employed. 2. Treatment of unpaid purchase price of machinery as money borrowed under rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules. 3. Dispute regarding evidence presented and decision-making process by the Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The case involved the assessment of income tax for multiple years where the assessee claimed deduction under section 80J based on capital employed in its undertaking. Despite no profits in those years, the assessee sought to carry forward the claimed deduction as deficiency for future set-off against profits. 2. A significant part of the capital comprised machinery bought on deferred payment from a Japanese manufacturer. The assessee argued that the unpaid purchase price should be considered as borrowed money from an approved source, thus not to be deducted from the capital value under rule 19A in computing the deficiency under section 80J. 3. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the deduction, stating the liability did not arise from borrowed funds. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision due to lack of evidence proving the machinery purchase price as a loan from an approved source. However, the Tribunal later found that the purchase was indeed financed through a loan from an approved source, meeting the criteria under rule 19A(3)(b). 4. The Tribunal considered evidence including a certificate from directors and a deferred payment guarantee from a bank, confirming the loan arrangement with a repayment period exceeding seven years. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim, revising the computation of capital for section 80J and rule 19A for all relevant years. 5. The Revenue sought to challenge the Tribunal's decision by requesting a reference to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Act. However, the Tribunal only referred a specific question regarding the interpretation of rule 19A(3)(b), leading to a focused legal discussion during the hearing. 6. During the hearing, the Revenue argued against the acceptance of new evidence by the Tribunal and alleged failure to consider relevant evidence. The High Court, however, emphasized that the Revenue could not raise new questions that were not referred by the Tribunal, limiting the scope of the discussion to the specific question referred. 7. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, noting that the assessee had indeed borrowed from an approved source for the machinery purchase with a repayment period exceeding seven years. As the Revenue did not challenge these crucial findings, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee on the referred question, affirming the Tribunal's decision without costs.
|
