9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding the treatment of loss arising from currency devaluation in an insurance company's accounts. Detailed Analysis: The High Court of Bombay dealt with a reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the treatment of a loss claimed by an insurance company due to the devaluation of the Pakistani rupee. The company claimed a deduction of Rs. 21,045 as a loss arising from the devaluation, specifically related to an advance tax amount of Rs. 4,646. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim, considering it as capital in nature and not falling under allowable expenditure. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also dismissed the appeal, stating that it was not an allowable expenditure under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The company then appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the loss should stand under rule 6 of the Act and could not be added back as disallowable expenditure. The Tribunal acknowledged the loss as allowable under section 10 but disallowed the Rs. 4,646 claimed as loss due to currency devaluation, considering it an imaginary loss. The Tribunal allowed the company to claim a reduced sum of Rs. 16,399. The Court analyzed the provisions of section 10(7) of the Act and rule 6, emphasizing that the balance of profits as per the annual accounts filed with the Controller of Insurance should be binding on the Income-tax Officer. Referring to various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Court concluded that the loss claimed by the company due to currency devaluation could not be considered as expenditure. The Court held that the Income-tax Officer had no power to add back the amount of Rs. 4,646 in arriving at the company's total income, and the Tribunal's decision to sustain the addition was deemed erroneous. In a concurring opinion, another judge agreed with the decision, and the Court answered the question in the negative, directing the Commissioner to pay the costs of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the distinction between business loss and expenditure, emphasizing that a loss arising from currency devaluation cannot be treated as expenditure under the Income-tax Act.
|
