Court disallows contingent liability, allows forex loss deduction. Section 43B not applicable. Appeal dismissed.

The court affirmed the disallowance of Rs. 1,64,87,375/- as a contingent liability, not deductible, and ruled that Section 43B did not apply as the liability was contractual, not statutory. The court allowed the deduction for foreign exchange fluctuation loss, in favor of the assessee. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of an amount of Rs. 1,64,87,375/- as a contractual trading liability.
2. Applicability of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act to the liability of Rs. 1,64,87,375/-.
3. Disallowance of a sum of Rs. 9,37,669.81 due to foreign exchange fluctuation loss.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 1,64,87,375/- as a Contractual Trading Liability

The appellant claimed a deduction for additional customs duty as part of the landed cost of imported materials. This duty was disputed by the importers and not paid to customs authorities. The Tribunal disallowed this deduction, considering it a contingent liability, as the duty would only be payable if the customs authorities prevailed in the Supreme Court.

The court examined whether the liability was contingent or had accrued. According to the agreement, the appellant was to pay the disputed amount only if the importers were called upon to pay it. The court held that the liability was contingent upon the importers being called upon to pay the duty, making it a contingent liability and not deductible.

The court referred to Accounting Standard 29 and the Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT, which stated that a provision could only be recognized if a present obligation existed, it was probable that an outflow of resources would be required, and a reliable estimate could be made. The court concluded that the liability was contingent and not allowable as expenditure.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act

The court considered whether the liability could be deducted under Section 43B, which allows deduction of statutory liabilities only upon actual payment. The court held that the liability was contractual, not statutory, as it arose from the agreement between the appellant and the importers, not from any statute.

The court also addressed whether providing a bank guarantee amounted to actual payment. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Mcdowell and Co. Ltd., the court held that furnishing a bank guarantee did not equate to actual payment, as it did not involve a cash outflow to the public exchequer.

Issue 3: Disallowance of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss

The court noted that both parties agreed that the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation loss was covered in favor of the assessee by the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Woodward Governor India Private Limited. Accordingly, the court answered this question in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on the first two issues, holding that the liability of Rs. 1,64,87,375/- was a contingent liability and not deductible, and that Section 43B did not apply as the liability was contractual, not statutory. The court ruled in favor of the assessee on the third issue, allowing the deduction for foreign exchange fluctuation loss. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---