9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 in relation to deduction of borrowed capital for computing capital employed under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the deduction of borrowed capital while computing the capital employed for the purpose of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax contended that a specific sum should be deducted as a liability under Rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The original assessment granted relief under section 80J, but in reassessment, the relief was reduced due to the deduction of a certain amount considered as a liability. The Tribunal, however, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the amount in question was not borrowed money or a debt owed to a third party. The Tribunal emphasized that the funds were drawn from the company itself and not from any external source, hence not falling under the definition of borrowed monies or debts owed by the assessee. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 19A, which specifies the deduction of borrowed monies and debts owed by the assessee while computing the capital employed. The Tribunal found that the amount in question did not qualify as borrowed money as it was sourced from the company's own funds. Additionally, there was no debt owed to a third party, as the funds were utilized from surplus funds of another unit within the same company. The Tribunal highlighted that the term "borrowed monies" and "debts owed" imply transactions with third parties, which were absent in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the amount in question should not be deducted as a liability under Rule 19A. Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the argument that the amount was shown as a liability in the balance-sheet of the new unit, emphasizing that it was merely an internal accounting practice. The court clarified that the liability shown in the balance-sheet was for another unit of the same company and did not constitute borrowed monies or debts owed by the assessee to a third party. The court considered this finding as a matter of fact, thereby ruling that no legal question arose from the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.
|
