Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1997 (7) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Guarantee commission for machinery purchase deemed revenue expenditure, not capital. The court held that the guarantee commission paid by the assessee for securing timely repayment of the deferred credit facility for buying machinery in ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          Guarantee commission for machinery purchase deemed revenue expenditure, not capital.

                          The court held that the guarantee commission paid by the assessee for securing timely repayment of the deferred credit facility for buying machinery in its running business is a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal's decision to treat it as capital expenditure was deemed a manifest error of law. The question was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Whether the guarantee commission paid to bankers for securing timely repayment of credit facility under bills discounting scheme for the purchase of machinery and equipment required by the running business is a revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Nature of Guarantee Commission: Revenue vs. Capital Expenditure

                          Factual Background:
                          The assessee, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing mopeds, paid guarantee commission to its bankers for securing deferred credit under the bills discounting scheme to purchase machinery. The amounts were Rs. 6,98,780 and Rs. 7,03,821 for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, respectively. The assessee claimed these amounts as revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the Income-tax Officer classified it as capital expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partially agreed, allowing the commission post-installation as revenue expenditure. Both parties appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the entire amount as capital expenditure, leading to this reference.

                          Assessee's Argument:
                          The assessee contended that the guarantee commission was for obtaining a loan in the running business, not for acquiring a capital asset. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, which held that expenses for obtaining a loan are revenue expenditures.

                          Revenue's Argument:
                          The Revenue argued that since the loan was used to purchase capital assets (machinery), the guarantee commission should be considered capital expenditure. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167, which treated pre-commencement interest on loans for acquiring assets as capital expenditure.

                          Court's Analysis:
                          The court examined the precedents, particularly the Supreme Court's rulings in India Cements Ltd. and Challapalli Sugars Ltd. It concluded that the ratio in India Cements Ltd. was not affected by Challapalli Sugars Ltd., as the latter dealt with pre-commencement expenses, whereas the former involved a running business. The court emphasized that the act of borrowing is incidental to business, and the loan itself is a liability, not an asset or enduring advantage.

                          Precedents from High Courts:
                          The court reviewed decisions from various High Courts:
                          - Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT (Addl.) v. Akkamba Textiles Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 294: Held guarantee commission for machinery purchase as revenue expenditure.
                          - Madras High Court in Sivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 211: Similar conclusion, distinguishing the nature of guarantee commission from capital expenditure.
                          - Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Gogte Minerals (No. 1) [1997] 225 ITR 57: Treated guarantee commission for deferred payment schemes as revenue expenditure.

                          The court also noted the contrary view of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. [1982] 137 ITR 389, which it found unpersuasive in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in India Cements Ltd.

                          Conclusion:
                          The court held that the guarantee commission paid by the assessee for securing timely repayment of the deferred credit facility for buying machinery in its running business is a revenue expenditure. The Tribunal's decision to treat it as capital expenditure was a manifest error of law. The question referred was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

                          Disposition:
                          The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found