9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Claim of deductible loss by the assessee for the year 1961-62. 2. Determination of whether the loss incurred by the assessee was a trading or business loss. 3. Examination of whether the loss was allowable under section 10(1) or section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 4. Comparison with precedents to establish the nature of the loss. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a partnership firm that advanced a loan to a company controlled by the J.K. organization and later entered into a settlement involving the transfer of shares to recover the outstanding amount. The firm claimed a deductible loss of Rs. 2,04,450 for the year 1961-62, which was initially rejected by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and upheld in appeal. The Tribunal, however, allowed the claim after a difference of opinion among its members. The majority opinion emphasized that the advance and subsequent settlement were not part of the firm's money-lending business but were coerced due to pressure from the J.K. organization to protect its selling agency business, which was its main source of income. The Tribunal found that the firm's actions were based on commercial expediency rather than investment motives, making the loss a business loss allowable under section 10(1) of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining business relations with the J.K. organization and the necessity of accepting shares of Muir Mills Co. Ltd. as part of the settlement. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the affidavit of a partner of the firm, which the majority considered credible despite lack of corroboration from the J.K. organization's directors. In distinguishing precedents cited by the revenue's counsel, the judgment emphasized that the firm did not acquire the shares as an investment, but out of commercial expediency to recover the debt. The court relied on the test of expenses being incurred for the preservation or protection of the business, which was deemed applicable in this case. Consequently, the court answered the question in favor of the assessee, allowing the claim of Rs. 2,04,450 as a trading or business loss under section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, based on commercial expediency and the honest intention to sustain the business. Overall, the judgment underscores the distinction between capital losses and business losses, emphasizing the commercial context and necessity that drove the firm's actions, leading to the allowance of the claimed loss under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act.
|
