9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Determination of whether the surplus amount realized due to the devaluation of the Indian rupee constitutes a business profit or a capital gain.
Analysis: The case involved a foreign incorporated company engaged in the cloth business, exporting goods to England and America. The company experienced a devaluation of the Indian rupee, resulting in an excess amount received compared to the pre-devaluation value. The company contended that this surplus amount should be treated as a capital receipt, while the tax authorities classified it as business profit. The Tribunal upheld the tax authorities' decision, stating that the surplus was an integral part of the company's routine business operations and not segregated for capital purposes. The key question referred for decision was whether the surplus amount realized by the company due to the currency devaluation constituted a business profit or a capital gain. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the excess amount was received in connection with the sale of the company's stock-in-trade and was not earmarked for capital utilization. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in a related matter, the Court reiterated that profits or losses arising from foreign currency value fluctuations are typically treated as trading profits if the currency is held as part of the business's circulating capital. The Court also considered a precedent from the Kerala High Court involving a similar scenario where excess profit arose due to currency devaluation. However, the Court distinguished that case, stating that the excess received was directly linked to the business activities and, therefore, constituted a trading receipt. Drawing parallels with earlier Kerala High Court decisions, the Court concluded that the surplus amount in the present case was rightly treated as business profit subject to taxation. In conclusion, the High Court ruled that the surplus amount resulting from the currency devaluation was indeed a business profit and upheld its inclusion in the company's taxable income. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.
|
