2006 (8) TMI 153 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal Grants Assessee Deductions for Debenture Expenses, Harbour Costs, Incentives, and Interest; Appeals Dismissed.

The Tribunal consistently ruled in favor of the assessee on all issues, allowing deductions for expenses on debentures, harbour-related costs, incentives ... Deduction u/s 37 - Expenses incurred on partly convertible debentures - Payment of incentives to Dock Labour Board workers - Interest paid towards the loan taken for acquiring Spic zero bonds. Expenses incurred on partly convertible debentures - HELD THAT:- Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has not produced any material or evidence to take a different view. The reasoning of the Tribunal was based on relevant materials and evidence and there is no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal to warrant interference. In view of the same, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court and hence, the appeal in respect of question No.1 is dismissed. Payment of incentives to Dock Labour Board workers - HELD THAT:- The payment was necessitated to utilise the full capacity of manpower from the workers, to avoid demurrage charges and to keep the contract commitments made to the stevedores to discharge the tonnage as stipulated in the agreements between the stevedores and the principals. Both the authorities found that there is no breach of law in making payments which were essentially incidental to the carrying on of the appellant's business with a view to earning profits. The finding given by both the authorities is based on valid materials and evidence and there is no error or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and hence, does not require interference. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court and hence, the appeal with respect to question No.3 is dismissed. Interest paid on the borrowings from the subsidiary company - HELD THAT:- There is a factual finding that the assessee had its own free reserves and funds used mainly for running expenses. Also, there was no material produced by the Revenue to establish that the money borrowed was actually given to its subsidiaries. Hence the conclusion of the Tribunal is based on material and evidence and it does not suffer from legal infirmity to warrant interference. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court and hence, the appeal qua question No.5 is dismissed. Interest paid towards the loan taken for acquiring Spic zero bonds - HELD THAT:- Both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have given a factual finding that the assessee is a flag-ship company carrying on worldwide business and the bonds were acquired for purposes of the business. The conclusion arrived at by the authorities was based on material and evidence and hence no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this court and hence, the appeal in regard to question No.7 is dismissed. In the result, the tax case is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Deduction of expenses incurred on partly convertible debentures.2. Deduction of expenses paid at harbour, customs, airport.3. Deduction of incentives paid to Dock Labour Board workers.4. Allowance of loss from the Films Division.5. Deduction of interest paid on borrowings from the subsidiary company.6. Deletion of inclusion of interest from Sundaram Industries for amounts advanced.7. Deduction of interest paid towards loan taken for acquiring Spic zero bonds.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Deduction of Expenses Incurred on Partly Convertible DebenturesAssessment Years: 1989-90 and 1992-93The Tribunal held that the expenses incurred on the issue of debentures were revenue expenditures and should be allowed as deductions. The Assessing Officer had bifurcated the expenditure, treating 60% as capital expenditure and 40% as revenue expenditure without any basis. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court judgment in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52 and the Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. Thirani Chemicals Ltd. [2007] 290 ITR 196, which supported the deduction under section 37 of the Act. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.Issue 2: Deduction of Expenses Paid at Harbour, Customs, AirportAssessment Years: 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1992-93, and 1993-94The Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that these expenses were incurred in connection with the release of various goods and were inevitable. The Tribunal's factual findings were based on material and evidence, with no error or infirmity. The court reframed the question to clarify the nature of the expenses and dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.Issue 3: Deduction of Incentives Paid to Dock Labour Board WorkersAssessment Years: 1986-87 to 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93The Tribunal upheld the deduction of incentives paid to Dock Labour Board workers, share handling workers, tally clerks, and lorry drivers, which were necessary to speed up stevedoring work. The payments were customary and did not exceed 3% of gross receipts. Both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal found the payments genuine and necessary for the business. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.Issue 4: Allowance of Loss from the Films DivisionAssessment Years: 1986-87 and 1988-89The Tribunal consistently allowed the claim for loss from the Films Division, and the Revenue had accepted earlier orders without producing new evidence. The court found no error or infirmity in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.Issue 5: Deduction of Interest Paid on Borrowings from the Subsidiary CompanyAssessment Years: 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient free reserves and funds for running expenses, and no material was produced to show that borrowed money was given to subsidiaries. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on material and evidence, with no legal infirmity. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.Issue 6: Deletion of Inclusion of Interest from Sundaram Industries for Amounts AdvancedAssessment Years: 1986-87 to 1988-89, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94The Tribunal followed its earlier order for assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83, allowing the claim of the assessee. The Revenue did not produce evidence to take a different view. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.Issue 7: Deduction of Interest Paid Towards Loan Taken for Acquiring Spic Zero BondsAssessment Year: 1993-94The Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the bonds were acquired for business purposes and allowed the deduction of interest. The conclusion was based on material and evidence. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.Conclusion:The tax case was dismissed with no costs, as no substantial questions of law arose for consideration by the court in any of the issues raised.