9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the ship, S. S. Sheela Margaret, acquired by the assessee-company was stock-in-trade. 2. Whether the expenditure on the maintenance of the ship during the relevant assessment years was admissible as deductions in computing the income of the assessee-company. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the ship, S. S. Sheela Margaret, acquired by the assessee-company was stock-in-trade. The assessee-company, engaged in the business of import and sale of commodities, had advanced a loan to Gill Amin Steamship Co. Pvt. Ltd. The loan was secured by a first mortgage of the ship, S. S. Sheela Margaret. In 1963, the assessee decided to purchase the ship for Rs. 4 lakhs to settle the outstanding loan of Rs. 4,06,492, writing off the balance of Rs. 6,492 as a bad debt. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) initially rejected the claim that the ship was stock-in-trade, arguing that the assessee did not carry on any shipping business and implying that the transaction was colorable. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the ship, acquired as security and later purchased in settlement of the loan, constituted stock-in-trade of the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the AAC's finding of a colorable transaction and allowed the expenditure as revenue expenditure. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, referencing Section 28 and Section 36 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The court noted that the interest earned on the loan had been taxed as business income, and the bad debt write-off of Rs. 6,492 had been allowed by the ITO, indicating that the ship was treated as stock-in-trade. The court cited the Supreme Court decision in Pandit Narain Dutt Chhimwal v. CIT, which supported the view that assets acquired in the course of money-lending business retain their character as business assets. The court concluded that the ship was part of the stock-in-trade of the assessee's business, answering the first question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. Issue 2: Whether the expenditure on the maintenance of the ship during the relevant assessment years was admissible as deductions in computing the income of the assessee-company. Given the court's conclusion on the first issue, the second issue was also answered in favor of the assessee. The court reasoned that even if the ship were considered a capital asset, the expenditure incurred in maintaining and preserving it would still be revenue expenditure. The court cited the decision in All India Reporter Ltd. v. CIT, which held that expenditure incurred to defend a company's title to its assets is deductible as business expenditure. The court also referenced CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that expenditure for the preservation of business assets is deductible under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The court concluded that the maintenance expenditure was admissible as deductions, answering the second question in the affirmative. Conclusion: Both questions referred to the court were answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
|
