9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (1) TMI 62 - HC - Income TaxAssessee had entered into an agreement with a German firm payments made to german firm by assessee for failure to complete contract - the amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid by the assessee was on account of damages for breach of contract on its part and not a liability incurred for contravention of any law - amount claimed as deduction would thus be an expense incurred for the purposes of the business and could not have been disallowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the legal acceptability of divergent views from two co-ordinate Division Benches. 2. Whether the payment of damages for breach of contract is deductible as business expenses under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Legal Acceptability of Divergent Views The Full Bench was tasked with resolving the conflicting judgments between Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Indo Asian Switch Gears (P) Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 772 (P&H) and M/s. Baldev Singh Kanwar, Barishad, Hoshiarpur Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (1997) Indian Taxation Reports 640 (P&H). The former allowed deductions for damages paid for breach of contract, while the latter did not. Issue 2: Deductibility of Damages for Breach of Contract The primary question was whether the amount paid as damages for breach of contract could be considered as expenses "laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business" under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Background: A partner of the assessee firm entered into a contract in Germany for the supply of goods. Due to the lack of an import license, the contract could not be fulfilled, leading to arbitration and a subsequent payment of Rs. 50,000/- as damages to the German firm. Initially, this amount was allowed as a deduction by the Assessing Officer but was later disallowed based on the precedent set by Cineramas vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar-I (1977) 110 ITR 762. Legal Provisions and Interpretations: Section 37(1) of the Act allows deductions for any expenditure not covered under Sections 30 to 36, provided it is not capital expenditure or personal expenses and is laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The term "wholly and exclusively" refers to the expenditure's quantum and purpose, respectively. Judicial Precedents: 1. Supreme Court Rulings: - Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1993) 201 ITR 684: The court held that the nature of the payment (compensatory or penal) must be examined to determine deductibility. - Standard Batteries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1995) 211 ITR 444: Reiterated the need to differentiate between compensatory and penal payments. - Swedeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1998) 233 ITR 199: Confirmed that compensatory payments are deductible, while penal payments for law contravention are not. 2. High Court Rulings: - Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab v. Himalaya Rosin-Turpentine Manufacturing Company (1953) 24 ITR 132: Payments made towards penalties for rule breaches were disallowed. - Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Murari Lal Ahuja and Sons (1989) 177 ITR 228: Damages for breach of contract were considered deductible as they were seen as commercial expediency. - Commissioner of Income Tax v. S.A. Builders (P) Ltd. (2007) 211 CTR 473 [2008]299 ITR 88 (P&H): Followed the same principle as Murari Lal Ahuja's case. Resolution of Divergent Views: The Full Bench concluded that damages paid for breach of contract are compensatory and thus deductible under Section 37(1). The judgment in Indo Asian Switch-Gears (P) Ltd. was upheld, and the contrary view in M/s. Baldev Singh Kanwar's case was overruled. Application to Present Case: The assessee's payment of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for breach of contract was deemed compensatory and not for any infraction of law. Therefore, it was held to be an allowable business expense under Section 37(1). Final Judgment: The Tribunal's decision against the assessee was overturned, and the reference was decided in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of Rs. 50,000/- as business expenses.
|
