9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss of Rs. 2,30,000 on account of increase in the liability of the loans payable in foreign exchange is an allowable deduction? Summary: 1. Background and Facts: The assessee, an Indian company in collaboration with Groz-Beckert International A.G., faced an increased liability due to the devaluation of the Indian currency. The company had taken a loan from its collaborators to meet additional project costs. The devaluation led to an increased repayment amount in rupees, resulting in a claimed loss of Rs. 2,30,000. 2. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal observed that the loan was received from the supplier of machinery at the beginning of the company's career, treating it as part of the capital structure. It upheld the disallowance of Rs. 2,30,000 as a capital loss while allowing Rs. 13,800 as business expenditure. 3. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the loan was for working capital, not for erecting the profit-making apparatus. It contended that the Tribunal should have determined the utilization of the loan in the relevant financial year, which it failed to do. 4. Revenue's Argument: The revenue maintained that the loan was intended for capital account purposes, making the loss a capital loss. It argued that the Tribunal's finding that the loan was part of fixed capital was a question of fact and should not be disturbed. 5. Court's Analysis: The court highlighted that the crucial factor is the utilization of the loan, not the source or timing of the loan. It referred to Supreme Court judgments in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, CIT v. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd., and CIT v. Canara Bank Ltd., emphasizing that the nature of the capital (fixed or circulating) depends on its utilization in the business. 6. Conclusion: The court found that the Tribunal had considered irrelevant factors and failed to determine the actual utilization of the loan in the relevant assessment year. It held that such a finding of fact, influenced by irrelevant considerations, is not binding. The case was sent back to the Tribunal to dispose of the matter in light of the court's observations. Order: The case is remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration based on the correct criteria. No order as to costs.
|
