TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the loan initially obtained from the bank and later taken over by the corporation had to be treated as a single transaction for the purpose of clause (v) of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, so that the outstanding amount was includible in the capital base. (ii) Whether the subsequent letters extending the repayment period of the mortgage loans from the banks could be taken into account in determining whether the borrowing was for a period of not less than seven years under the same provision.
Issue (i): Whether the loan initially obtained from the bank and later taken over by the corporation had to be treated as a single transaction for the purpose of clause (v) of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, so that the outstanding amount was includible in the capital base.
Analysis: The borrowing arose out of one composite arrangement under which the assessee was to repay part of the loan to the bank and the balance to the corporation after it stepped into the bank's place. The relevant test was the period allowed to the assessee for repayment of the entire borrowing, not the split mode of discharge as between the bank and the corporation. On the facts, the assessee had time to repay the full borrowing beyond seven years.
Conclusion: The loan was rightly treated as a single transaction, and the outstanding amount was includible in the capital base. The finding is against the Department.
Issue (ii): Whether the subsequent letters extending the repayment period of the mortgage loans from the banks could be taken into account in determining whether the borrowing was for a period of not less than seven years under the same provision.
Analysis: The extension of time was effected through subsequent correspondence and not by an oral arrangement. The strict rules of evidence were held inapplicable to income-tax proceedings, and in any event the later written communications were sufficient to modify the original repayment terms. The extended period had to be read as part of the original borrowing arrangement, and on that basis the loans satisfied the seven-year requirement.
Conclusion: The subsequent extensions were validly taken into account, and the mortgage loans qualified for inclusion in the capital base. The finding is against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by upholding inclusion of the disputed borrowings in the capital computation under the surtax provisions, with the second answer also resting on the corrected loan figure.
Ratio Decidendi: For clause (v) of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the decisive factor is the real period allowed to the assessee for repayment of the borrowing, and that period may be determined from the entire composite arrangement and from subsequent written modification of repayment terms.
TaxTMI 
