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

1980 Supreme(Cal) 440

SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE, SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA
OIL INDIA CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-II – Respondent


SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred certain questions of law both at the instance of the assessee as well as at the instance of the Revenue. In order to understand these questions, it is necessary to note that the assessment year involved is the assessment year 1967-68. The assessee had taken a loan of 3,94,433, from the Burmah Oil Co. , London, in 1966, which was free of interest. It was repaid in December, 1966. In the meantime, there was a devaluation of the Indian rupee on the 6th June, 1966. As a result of the devaluation, the assessee had to pay in terms of the Indian currency Rs. 83,24,896 as against Rs. 52,50,000 received by the assessee as the original amount of loan. The extra amount of Rs. 30,74,896 was claimed by the assessee as a loss incidental to its business or as an expenditure under Section 37 of the I. T. Act, 1961. The assessee had also taken another loan of 10,250,000 from the Bank of Scotland on 30th June, 1963. Out of this 163,063 had remained unutilised and was retained in the U. K. The balance amounting to 1,086,937 was utilised by the assessee for the purchase of capital a















































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top