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

1980 Supreme(Cal) 161

High Court Of Calcutta
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA
UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent
Income-Tax Reference 127  Of  1977
Decided On : 04/28/1980

Advocates Appeared:
Debi Pal, MANISHA SEAL, P.K.PAL, SUHAS SEN

The increased liability of Rs. 1,75,99,854 due to devaluation was not deductible in computing assessee's business income, as it was on account of capital and not revenue. The alternative claim of assessee-company for development rebate under section 33 of the Act, 1961, on Rs. 1,09,24,832 was not admissible under the provisions of the Act.

Headnote:

The increased liability of Rs. 1,75,99,854 due to devaluation was not deductible in computing assessee's business income, as it was on account of capital and not revenue. The alternative claim of assessee-company for development rebate under section 33 of the Act, 1961, on Rs. 1,09,24,832 was not admissible under the provisions of the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee is a limited company and, as mentioned hereinbefore, the reference relates to the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee-company under an agreement dated August 16, 1963, had taken a loan from the Export Import Bank of Washington for making payment in the United States of America of the price of capital plant and machinery purchased for the new project, viz. , a petrochemical undertaking. The loan was taken and repayable in dollars. This is an important fact which is to be borne in mind. Out of this loan, which the assessee-company took from the Export Import Bank, payment was made for capital plant and machinery purchased from the various suppliers in the United States of America and the plant and machinery so purchased were shipped to India for installation in the petrochemical undertaking. On June 6, 1966, there was devaluation of the Indian rupee and, therefore, the liability of the assessee-company for repayment of loan to the Export Import Bank in dollars increased in terms of rupees to Rs. 1,75,99,854. This increased liability was accounted for by the assessee-company by crediting the Export Import Bank and debiting Rs. 1,09,24,932 to the plant and machinery account, Rs. 98,766 to the building account and Rs. 65,74,256 to the capital work-in-progress.

Finding of the Court:

The increased liability of Rs. 1,75,99,854 due to devaluation was not deductible in computing assessee's business income, as it was on account of capital and not revenue. The alternative claim of assessee-company for development rebate under section 33 of the Act, 1961, on Rs. 1,09,24,832 was not admissible under the provisions of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the increase in liability of Rs. 1,75,99,854 due to devaluation was not deductible in computing the assessee's business income ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the alternative claim of the assessee-company for development rebate under section 33 of the 'income-tax Act, 1961, on Rs. 1,09,24,832 was not admissible under the provisions of the Act ?

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,83,614 was not deductible in computing the assessee's profits and gains of business. There the Tribunal was also right in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,83,614 was not deductible in computing the chargeable profits for the purposes of the surtax assessment for the assessment year 1967-68.

Final Decision: In view of the consistent view of the Supreme Court and in view of the decision of this court in the last mentioned case, the assessce's contention cannot be accepted by us. In that view of the matter, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs.

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference, under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the I. T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, the following questions have been referred to this court for answer ;"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the increase in liability of Rs. 1,75,99,854 due to devaluation was not deductible in computing the assessee's business income ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the alternative claim of the assessee-company for development rebate under section 33 of the 'income-tax Act, 1961, on Rs. 1,09,24,832 was not admissible under the provisions of the Act ?"

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate these questions, it is necessary to state certain facts. The assessee is a limited company and, as mentioned hereinbefore, the reference relates to the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee-company under an agreement dated August 16, 1963, had taken a loan from the Export Import Bank of Washington for making payment in the United States of America of the price of capital plant and machinery purchased for the new project, viz. , a petrochemical undertaking. The loan was taken and repayable in dollars. This is an important fact which is to be borne in mind. Out of this loan, which the assessee-company took from the Export Import Bank, payment was made for capital plant and machinery purchased from the various suppliers in the United States of America and the plant and machinery so purchased were shipped to India for installation in the petrochemical undertaking. On June 6, 1966, there was devaluation of the Indian rupee and, therefore, the liability of the assessee-company for repayment of loan to the Export Import Bank in dollars increased in terms of rupees to Rs. 1,75,99,854. This increased liability was accounted for by the assessee-company by crediting the Export Import Bank and debiting Rs. 1,09,24,932 to the plant and machinery account, Rs. 98,766 to the building account and Rs. 65,74,256 to the capital work-in-progress. The assessee-company claimed before the ITO that the increased liability of Rs. 1,75,99,854 arising out of devaluation of the Indian rupee on June 6, 1966, should be allowed as deduction in computing the business income. Alternatively, it was claimed by the assessee-company that the amount of Rs. 1,09,24,832, attributable to the plant and machinery account, development rebate should be allowed. The ITO rejected both these claims. The assessee-company thereafter preferred an appeal before the AAC. The AAC, relying on some other point, upheld the findings of the ITO on these two aspects. The assessee-company thereafter preferred a further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the rival contentions made before it, had held as follows:"5. We have considered the rival submissions. On the first issue whether the loss arising out of devaluation on account of loan from the Export Import Bank of Washington was an allowable deduction in computing the business income, even though a number of case law have been cited before us by both the sides, the answer to the question is self-evident from the ruling of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd. In that case, the hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that where profit or loss arising from change in exchange rate of foreign currency was on the balance outstanding in connection with the purchase of capital goods, the profit or loss is of the nature of capital. Viewed in this context, it was not under dispute in the present case that the loan from the Export Import Bank of Washington was taken for the purchase in the USA of capital plant and machinery in the new project of petrochemical undertaking. The loan outstanding to the Export Import Ban





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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