1981 (8) TMI 7 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amount paid by the assessee-firm to foreign buyers can be regarded as an outgoing wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business.
2. Whether the expenditure is of a capital nature.

Summary:

Issue 1: Outgoing for Business Purpose
The court examined whether the payment of Rs. 1,28,384 by the assessee-firm to foreign buyers was an outgoing wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. The assessee-firm had purchased the business from a sole proprietor and continued the business, including settling claims for short-measurement deliveries made by the previous owner. The court noted that u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the expenditure need not be incurred to earn profits but must be laid out wholly and exclusively for the business. The court referenced Viscount Cave's dictum in Atherton v. British Insulated and Helsby Cables Ltd. [1925] 10 TC 155 (HL), which supports the view that even voluntary expenditure for commercial expediency can be for business purposes. The court concluded that the payments were made to preserve and improve business reputation and custom, thus satisfying the requirement of being wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Issue 2: Capital Nature of Expenditure
The court addressed whether the expenditure was capital in nature. The standing counsel argued that the payment was part of the purchase price for acquiring the business. However, the court found that the claims for short delivery surfaced only after the business was taken over and were not anticipated during the purchase. The court held that the nature of the outgoing depends on whether the liabilities are related to revenue or capital account. Since the payments were made to settle trade debts related to short deliveries, they were considered revenue outgoings. The court distinguished this case from others where payments to the vendor were part of the purchase price, noting that the payments here were made to maintain business continuity and reputation.

Conclusion:
The court held that the payment of Rs. 1,28,384 was an admissible deduction u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business and was not capital expenditure. The question of law was answered in favor of the assessee, and the Department was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.