9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the interest paid by the assessee-company to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) should be allowed as a deduction in the computation of business income for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. 2. Whether the expenses were in connection with the expansion of the existing business or the setting up of a new business that had not commenced by the end of the relevant previous year. Summary: Issue 1: Deduction of Interest Paid as Business Expense The assessee-company, a limited company, claimed deductions for interest payments to LIC amounting to Rs. 88,910 for the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 1,08,648 for the assessment year 1969-70. The interest was described as rent in the profit and loss account. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction, considering it capital expenditure. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal, concluding that the interest payments were not in the nature of rent but were related to the setting up of a new hotel business, which had not commenced by the end of the relevant previous year. Issue 2: Nature of Expenses - Expansion of Existing Business vs. Setting Up of New Business The Tribunal found that the expenses were not for the expansion of the existing business but for setting up a new hotel, which started operations in July 1971. The Tribunal held that the expenses were not related to any business carried on by the assessee in the relevant years. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that for expenses to be allowable, they must be incurred in respect of a business that was carried on by the assessee and the profits of which are computed and assessed. Since the new hotel business had not commenced by the end of the relevant previous year, the expenses could not be allowed as deductions. Legal Precedents and Principles: The High Court referred to several legal precedents, including: - State of Madras v. G. J. Coelho [1964] 53 ITR 186 (SC): Interest on borrowed capital was not considered capital expenditure as no new asset was acquired or enduring benefit obtained. - India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1966] 60 ITR 52 (SC): Expenditure for securing the use of money for a certain period was not capital expenditure. - Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sarabhai Sons Pvt. Ltd. [1973] 90 ITR 318 (Guj): Distinction between commencing a business and setting it up; business must be ready to start functioning. - L. M. Chhabda & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 65 ITR 638 (SC): Different ventures carried on by the assessee must be established as part of the same business for expenses to be allowable. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the expenses claimed in the computation of business income. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue. The parties were directed to pay and bear their own costs. Separate Judgment: SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J. concurred with the judgment.
|
