9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Applicability of sub-section (2) of section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to earnings by way of dead freight. Detailed Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of GUJARAT pertained to the interpretation of section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically focusing on the applicability of sub-section (2) to earnings from dead freight. The case involved a non-resident assessee who received a total sum under a contract with a shipping company, which included an amount for dead freight recoverable due to cargo not being shipped as per the agreement. The Income-tax Officer computed the income accruing in India to the assessee under section 172(2) based on the total amount received. The assessee contended that the dead freight amount should not be included as it was not related to the carriage of goods. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal agreed with the assessee's position, leading to an appeal by the revenue. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of section 172(2), which deems a portion of the amount paid for carriage of goods as income accruing in India to the owner or charterer of the ship. The court analyzed the legislative intent behind the provision, emphasizing that the amount must be paid or payable for carriage of goods, not for non-carriage. The term "dead freight" was defined as compensation for the loss of freight due to the deficiency of cargo, indicating it is not a payment for the carriage of goods but a form of damages for breach of contract. The court highlighted that a legal fiction, such as the one in section 172(2), should be limited to its intended purpose, and payments for dead freight do not fall within its scope. The court concluded that any payment made on account of dead freight cannot be treated as payment for the carriage of goods in a ship but is rather compensation for the failure to load a full cargo. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to exclude the dead freight amount from the computation of income under section 172(2) was upheld. The judgment favored the assessee, ruling in their favor and against the revenue. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.
|
