1975 (4) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Amalgamation, Balancing Charge, Developement Rebate, Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance, Foreign Travel Expenditure, Property Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of travelling expenses as revenue expenditure.
2. Taxability of unclaimed balances written back under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Allowability of property tax as revenue expenditure.
4. Taxability of penalty recovered from cane growers.
5. Allowability of extra shift allowance on additions to plant and machinery.
6. Classification of loose tools and implements as plant or machinery for depreciation and development rebate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowability of Travelling Expenses as Revenue Expenditure:
The first issue pertains to whether the amount of Rs. 11,922 representing travelling expenses of the managing director is allowable as a revenue expenditure. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the expense, considering it a capital expenditure for entering into a collaboration agreement. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that the tour was for improving an existing venture's efficiency and output, not for setting up a new one. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted the company's contention that the amount claimed was a revenue expenditure. The court upheld this finding, noting that the managing director's tour was primarily for acquiring technical know-how to enhance the existing business, making it a revenue expense. The court cited the case of Sayaji Iron & Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 240 (Guj) to support its decision and answered the question in favor of the assessee.

2. Taxability of Unclaimed Balances Written Back Under Section 41(1):
The second issue involves whether the amount of Rs. 58,735, representing unclaimed balances written back to the profit and loss account, is chargeable to tax under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation Ltd., which incurred the expenditure, was a distinct entity from the assessee-company. The court, however, disagreed, stating that the amalgamation of the two companies resulted in a blending of their corporate personalities. Consequently, the liabilities and benefits of the amalgamating company (Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation Ltd.) continued in the amalgamated company (Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.). The court held that Section 41(1) should be construed to imply that the corporate personality of the amalgamating company is blended and continued in the amalgamated company, making the amount taxable. The court answered this question in the negative, in favor of the revenue.

3. Allowability of Property Tax as Revenue Expenditure:
The third issue concerns whether the amount of Rs. 2,431 paid as property tax on buildings used for business purposes is allowable as a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal had disallowed this expense, but the court noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 735 (SC) supports the view that property tax on business premises is a revenue expense. The court also rejected the argument that property tax on workers' housing should not be allowed, emphasizing that providing housing for workers is directly and intimately connected with the business. The court cited Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, which allows depreciation on employees' quarters, to support its decision. The court answered this question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee.

4. Taxability of Penalty Recovered from Cane Growers:
The fourth issue is whether the amount of Rs. 83,317 recovered as bond penalty from cane growers is a trading receipt liable to be included in the assessable income. The ITO, AAC, and Tribunal had all treated this amount as income, and the court found no flaw in their reasoning. The court answered this question in the negative, in favor of the revenue.

5. Allowability of Extra Shift Allowance on Additions to Plant and Machinery:
The fifth issue involves whether extra shift allowance on additions to plant and machinery should be allowed based on the number of days the concern worked as a whole, even if individual machinery worked fewer days. The ITO allowed the allowance proportionately, and this decision was upheld by the AAC and Tribunal. The court found no conflict between the statutory provisions and the shift allowance granted by the ITO and upheld the Tribunal's reasoning. The court answered this question in favor of the revenue.

6. Classification of Loose Tools and Implements as Plant or Machinery:
The final issue is whether tools and implements costing Rs. 24,401 qualify as plant or machinery for depreciation, extra shift allowance, and development rebate. The ITO, AAC, and Tribunal had disallowed these claims, considering the items as loose tools, not plant or machinery. The court, however, noted that the statutory definition of "plant" in Section 43(3) of the Income-tax Act is broad and includes items used for business purposes. The court cited several authorities, including Yarmouth v. France [1887] 19 QBD 647 (QB) and CIT v. Indian Turpentine and Rosin Co. Ltd. [1970] 75 ITR 533 (All), to support its view that loose tools and implements should be considered "plant." The court answered this question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The court provided detailed judgments on each issue, with some decisions favoring the assessee and others the revenue. The judgments were based on interpretations of statutory provisions, factual findings, and relevant case law.

← Previous Next →