1980 (2) TMI 51 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the actual cost of the drier plant for the purposes of allowance of development rebate u/s 33 and depreciation u/s 32.
2. Admissibility of legal and court expenses as a deduction u/s 37(1).
3. Permissibility of deductions for interest paid on income-tax arrears and commission paid on shares borrowed.

Issue 1: Actual Cost of the Drier Plant
The Tribunal held that the cost of the drier plant shown by the assessee at Rs. 7,70,000 was the actual cost for the purposes of allowance of development rebate u/s 33 and depreciation u/s 32, rejecting the ITO's determination of Rs. 3,60,000. The ITO found that the payment to Bhagwati Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. was excessively inflated and collusive, aimed at claiming larger depreciation. The Tribunal, however, observed that the term "actual cost" in s. 43(1) suggested both the reality of the payment and the cost to the assessee. It held that unless part of the cost was unpaid or ploughed back, the department could not substitute its own figure. The High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Guzdar Kajora Coal Mines Ltd. v. CIT, disagreed with the Tribunal, stating that collusion and inflation could justify the ITO's determination of actual cost. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to ascertain the actual cost.

Issue 2: Legal and Court Expenses Deduction
The Tribunal allowed the deduction of Rs. 8,679 claimed by the assessee as legal and court expenses u/s 37(1). The High Court upheld this decision, referencing the Supreme Court's observations in CIT v. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. and Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT, which stated that steps taken to reduce tax liability, resulting in more funds for business, could lead to higher profits. The High Court also cited similar decisions by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, affirming that such expenses were permissible as business expenditure.

Issue 3: Deductions for Interest and Commission
The High Court referred to its earlier decision for the year 1961-62 in the present assessee's case, where a similar question was answered in the negative and against the assessee. Consequently, the High Court answered this question against the assessee, disallowing the deductions for interest paid on income-tax arrears and commission paid on shares borrowed.

Conclusion:
The High Court remanded the matter of determining the actual cost of the drier plant to the Tribunal, upheld the deduction of legal and court expenses, and disallowed the deductions for interest and commission. No order as to costs was made.