Capital employed for industrial relief includes borrowed funds; surtax is not deductible, while gratuity and settled charges are allowable.

Section 80J capital employed was treated as the total resources used in the industrial undertaking, including borrowed funds, because delegated rules cannot narrow the statutory relief by excluding debt. Surtax liability was treated as an appropriation of profits and not an allowable deduction in computing business income. A gratuity provision based on actuarial valuation was accepted as an accrued business liability, even without an approved fund. Disputed water charges were allowed under the mercantile system once the liability was settled. The claim for increased development rebate on the Cyanuric Chloride process and design cost required further factual and statutory reconsideration and was remanded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 could validly exclude borrowed moneys and debts in computing capital employed for relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether surtax liability was deductible in computing business income; (iii) whether provision for gratuity based on actuarial valuation was allowable; (iv) whether the provision for disputed water charges was deductible on the mercantile system; and (v) whether the claim for increased development rebate on the Cyanuric Chloride process and design cost was to be allowed or sent back for reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 could validly exclude borrowed moneys and debts in computing capital employed for relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The expression used in section 80J was read in its plain and commercial sense as referring to the capital employed in the industrial undertaking itself, not to the proprietor's net worth. The reasoning stressed that capital employed in the undertaking consists of the total resources sunk into the undertaking, irrespective of whether they come from own funds or borrowings. Subordinate legislation could not whittle down the statutory relief. On that construction, the exclusion of borrowed capital and debts in rule 19A(3) was repugnant to the section.

Conclusion: The rule was held to be in conflict with section 80J, and borrowed capital was not to be excluded in computing the capital employed for the relief.

Issue (ii): Whether surtax liability was deductible in computing business income.

Analysis: Surtax was treated as a tax on profits arising after the profits had been earned and as an appropriation of income rather than an outgoing incurred to earn income. The reasoning also held that section 40(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 barred deduction of any tax on profits or assessed on the basis of such profits. Accordingly, surtax could not be brought within the general deduction provisions.

Conclusion: Surtax liability was not deductible in computing business income.

Issue (iii): Whether provision for gratuity based on actuarial valuation was allowable.

Analysis: The gratuity scheme was introduced during the previous year and the liability had accrued during that year on actuarial valuation. In those circumstances, the accrued liability was treated as a proper business deduction, and the absence of an approved fund did not defeat the claim on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The gratuity provision was allowable in full.

Issue (iv): Whether the provision for disputed water charges was deductible on the mercantile system.

Analysis: The liability for water charges was ultimately settled with the Irrigation Department. Since the assessee followed the mercantile system, the liability was treated as having accrued and becoming allowable on the basis of the settled obligation rather than the original dispute or temporary stay.

Conclusion: The water charges were allowable as a deduction on the basis of the settled liability.

Issue (v): Whether the claim for increased development rebate on the Cyanuric Chloride process and design cost was to be allowed or sent back for reconsideration.

Analysis: The enhanced rebate claim depended on factual and statutory examination that had not been properly undertaken by the lower authorities. The matter was therefore not finally determined on merits by the appellate forum and required reconsideration by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded for examination and decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the section 80J and gratuity and water-charge claims, failed on the surtax and Cyanuric Chloride rebate claims, and obtained a remand on the additional rebate issue, so the appeal was only partly successful overall.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 80J, the capital employed in an industrial undertaking means the total value of the assets and resources employed in that undertaking, regardless of whether they are financed by owned funds or borrowings, and a delegated rule cannot subtract from the statutory allowance by excluding borrowed capital.

---