9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 34,656 as a deductible expenditure under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. 2. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee's business had continued during the year of assessment was supported by any evidence on record. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of Litigation Expenses as Deductible Expenditure Facts and Background: The assessee, a registered firm engaged in abkari business, claimed litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 34,656 as a deductible expenditure in its assessment for the year 1958-59. The litigation expenses were incurred in a suit filed against the Union of India and the State of Bombay for damages due to the cancellation of a liquor manufacturing licence by the erstwhile Kolhapur Government following the application of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal held that the litigation expenses were incurred for the recovery of amounts that would have formed part of the revenue accounts of the assessee. It concluded that the expenditure was not likely to bring into existence any capital asset or enduring benefit and was incurred in the capacity of a trader in connection with its abkari business. Hence, it was deemed a revenue expenditure. High Court's Analysis: The High Court examined the nature of the claim in the suit, which included damages for sterilization of plant and machinery, dead-stock, stock-in-trade, loss of profits for the unexpired period of the contract, and general damages. The Court noted that the major items claimed were for loss of profits and damages to plant and machinery. The Court emphasized that the nature of the claim, not the success or failure of the litigation, determines the character of the expenditure. The Court found that the claim was for the loss of the business itself, not merely for the loss of profits. The cancellation of the licence resulted in the complete stoppage of the business activity of manufacturing and selling liquor, which was not a voluntary act but an inevitable result of the Prohibition Act. Therefore, the compensation claimed was for the loss of the source of income, making it a capital receipt. Precedents Considered: - Senairam Doongarmall v. Commissioner of Income-tax: Compensation for the requisition of a factory resulting in the stoppage of business was held to be a capital receipt. - Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax: Compensation for the loss of a managing agency affecting the trading structure was held to be a capital receipt. - Commissioner of Income-tax v. Best & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.: Compensation for the termination of an agency in the ordinary course of business was held to be a revenue receipt, but the facts were distinguishable. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the litigation expenses were not incurred for the purpose of continuing the business or avoiding a threat to its existence but were for recovering damages for the stoppage of the business. Therefore, the expenses were capital in nature and not admissible as revenue expenditure. The question was answered in the negative, and the assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the Commissioner. 2. Continuation of Business During the Year of Assessment Notice of Motion by the Department: The department sought to include additional documents in the record to support their claim that the assessee's business had not continued during the year of assessment. High Court's Decision: The Court dismissed the notice of motion, stating that the additional documents were not relevant to the present reference and could not be made part of the case. The Court noted that the Tribunal's finding on the continuation of the business was not under consideration in the current reference. Final Judgment: The High Court ruled that the litigation expenses were capital in nature and not deductible as revenue expenditure. The question was answered in the negative, and the assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the Commissioner.
|
