9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of additional price of sugarcane as a liability for the assessment year 1963-64. 2. Classification of losses from forward transactions as hedging losses u/s 43(5)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Deduction of Additional Price of Sugarcane The assessee, M/s. M.P. Sugar Mills Private Ltd., claimed a liability for payment of Rs. 10,92,364 for deferred payment of cane price under a price-linking formula during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1963-64. The ITO disallowed this claim, and the AAC upheld the ITO's order. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the claim, allowing the deduction. The High Court referred to its previous decisions in similar cases (Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 988) and held that the liability to pay additional price accrued in the year the sugarcane was purchased and the minimum price was fixed. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction. The first question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. Issue 2: Classification of Losses from Forward Transactions as Hedging Losses The assessee incurred losses of Rs. 2,35,882 from lahi sarson vaida and Rs. 13,605 from moongphali vaida, claiming these as hedging losses deductible from business profits. The ITO and AAC disallowed the claim, interpreting s. 43(5)(a) to mean only forward purchase contracts in raw materials against contracts for actual supply of manufactured goods qualified as hedging transactions. The Tribunal, however, held that the losses were from forward transactions of sale of raw materials used in manufacturing oil, entered into to safeguard against price fluctuation, and thus were hedging contracts outside the ambit of speculative transactions u/s 43(5) of the Act. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that s. 43(5)(a) does not restrict hedging contracts to purchases alone and can include sales of raw materials to guard against future price fluctuations in manufactured goods. The court found no valid reason to exclude such hedging contracts from the ambit of s. 43(5)(a). The second question was also answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. Conclusion: Both questions were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. The assessee was entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 200.
|
