Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the sum paid as liquidated damages for breach of the export obligation was allowable as a deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act in the assessment year 1944-45.
Analysis: The liability arising from the assessee's failure to export the coffee was only contingent during the relevant accounting year and was not ascertained until the Coffee Board asserted the claim and the amount was fixed and paid later. A contingent or anticipated liability is not deductible as expenditure for the earlier year. The payment was also not expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the business, because the breach was not an incident of normal trading but a departure from the statutory and contractual controls governing export sales. In substance, the amount paid was akin to a penalty for infraction of the regulatory obligation and was not incidental to the trade itself.
Conclusion: The amount was not deductible under section 10(2)(xv), and the answer to the reference was against the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A contingent or unascertained liability cannot be deducted as business expenditure for an earlier year, and a payment made for breach of a regulatory trading obligation, being akin to a penalty rather than an incident of normal trade, is not expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business.