9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the assessee : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the of Rs. 13,99,305 being expenses incurred in connection with the issue of fresh lot of shares in 1967 ? " The question relates to the assessment year 1969-70 and the relevant accounting year ended on June 30, 1968. The assessee is a public limited company. It issued ordinary shares of Rs. 16,75,000 of Rs. 10 each at a premium with a view to increase its share capital and, in that connection, it incurred an expenditure of Rs. 13,99,305 which amount was claimed by it as deductible expenses. The said deduction was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the view that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was on capital account. The said view of the Income-t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT [1989] 175 ITR 220 (Kar) and Federal Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 180 ITR 241 (Ker)]. We find that this matter has come up for consideration before this court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 792 (Tax Reference No. 1 of 1990, decided on December 4, 1996). In that case, the question under consideration was whether an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 paid to the Registrar of Companies as filing fee for enhancement of capital was not revenue expenditure. The court has taken note of the decisions of the Madras, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala High Courts to which reference has been made by Dr. Pal as well as the judgment under challenge in this appeal and the judgment of the High Courts taking the same vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e profit and that in such a case the expenditure that is incurred in connection with issuing of shares to increase the capital has to be treated as revenue expenditure. In this connection, Dr. Pal has invited our attention to the submissions that were urged by learned counsel for the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as before the Tribunal. It is no doubt true that before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as before the Tribunal it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the increase in the capital was to meet the need for working funds for the assessee-company. But the statement of case sent by the Tribunal does not indicate that a finding was recorded to the effect that the expansion of the capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
