SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(Cal) 158

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
DAULATRAM RAWATMULL - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL) - Respondent
Income-Tax Reference 125  Of  1967
Decided On : JULY 01, 1969

Payment of damages for breach of contract is not a speculative transaction within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 24 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and is therefore an allowable expenditure under Section 10 of the Act.

Headnote:

INCOME TAX - Speculative transaction - Loss in speculation - Payment of damages for breach of contract - Not a speculative transaction - Allowable expenditure under Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, a registered firm, entered into a contract with a foreign party for the delivery of groundnut oil. The assessee failed to supply the goods contracted for and was directed to pay the difference between the market rate and the contract rate as damages. The assessee claimed deduction of the said sum in the assessment for the relevant year, but the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed the claim, treating it as a loss in speculation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the payment of damages for breach of contract was not a speculative transaction within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 24 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was therefore an allowable expenditure under Section 10 of the Act.

Issues: Whether the sum paid by the assessee as damages for breach of contract was a loss in speculation within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 24 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or an allowable expenditure under Section 10 (1) or Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the payment of damages for breach of contract was not a speculative transaction within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 24 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because it was not a settlement of the contract itself either periodically or ultimately, but a payment of damages for breach or non-fulfilment or non-performance of the contract.

Final Decision: The court answered the question in the negative, holding that the sum of Rs. 44,226 was not a loss in speculation within the scope of Explanation 2 to Section 24 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and that it was an allowable expenditure under Section 10 of the Act.

SANKAR PRASAD MITRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, arises out of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1956-57. The relevant previous year is the Deshera year commencing on October 7, 1954, and ending on October 25, 1955. The assessee is a registered firm. Its head office is in Calcutta. It has branch in Bombay which was carrying on the business of exporting groundnut oil. The assessee had regular transactions with Messrs. N. Schrok, N. V. Rotterdam. During the relevant year the assessee fulfilled severa contracts with the Rotterdam party by making deliveries of the goods contracted for. On November 4, 1953, the assessee entered into a contract with the party at Rotterdam for delivery of 200 tons (of 2,240 lbs. each) of Indian crude groundnut oil for January and/or February, 1954, shipment at 125 per ton. But the assessee could not secure the export licence for shipping the goods. On the date of the contract the Government of India had not announced its export policy but during the first half of the year exports were normally permitted. The Tribunal observed that the assessee must have thought that by January-February, 1954, the export permit would be available and it would be able to make the supplies of the contracted goods. But the assessee's expectations were belied and it failed to supply the goods contracted for. In pursuance of the contract an arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator gave an award on December 30, 1954, There was an appeal against this award but the award was confirmed. In the award the assessee was directed to pay the difference between the market rate of 141 per ton (less 1%) and the contract rate of 125 per ton. In Indian money the difference came to Rs. 44,226. The assessee remitted this sum of Rs. 44,226 to the foreign party with the sanction of the Reserve Bank of India.

( 2 ) THE assessee claimed deduction of the said sum of Rs. 44,226 in the assessment for the relevant year. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the claim. He held that since the contract had been settled by payment of differences, the loss was a loss in speculation falling within the scope of Explanation 2 of Section 24 (1) of the Act of 1922.

( 3 ) THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. The assessee's contention before the Tribunal was that the aforesaid sum was paid by way of liquidated damages and could not be treated as a loss in speculation. The assessee submitted that it was, therefore, an expenditure allowable under Section 10 (1) or Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Act. The Tribunal has held that the said sum of Rs. 44,226 was rightly treated as a loss in speculation.

( 4 ) THE following question has, in the circumstances, been referred to this court :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 44,226 was a loss in speculation within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 24 (1) or an allowable expenditure under Section 10 (1) or Section 10 (2) (xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922?"

( 5 ) LET us, at the outset, set out the relevant provisions of Section 24, They are as follows:"24. Set-off of loss in computing aggregate income.-- (1) Where any assessee sustains a loss of profits or gains in any year under any of the heads mentioned in Section 6, he shall be entitled to have the amount of the loss set off against his income, profits or gains under any other head in that year: provided that in computing the profits and gains chargeable under the head 'profits and gains of business, profession or vocation', any loss sustained in speculative transactions which are in the nature of a business shall not be taken into account except to the extent of the amount of profits and gains, if any, in any other business consisting of speculative transactions. . . Explanation 2.--A speculative transaction means a transaction in which a contract for purchase and sale of any commodity including stock






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top