High Court rules on disallowance of trading liability under Section 43B of Income Tax Act

The High Court upheld the disallowance of a contractual trading liability under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, citing the liability as contingent upon an uncertain fact and not an allowable deduction. The Court partially allowed the appeal against the assessee. Regarding the loss incurred due to the devaluation of the Rupee, the Court found it admissible based on relevant legal principles and precedents, contrary to the Revenue's disallowance. The appeal was partly allowed in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Disallowance of contractual trading liability under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of loss incurred on account of devaluation of Rupee.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the disallowance of an amount incurred as a contractual trading liability under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing and trading, had agreements with overseas processors for the purchase of imported materials. The Revenue disallowed a specific amount, claiming it was not permissible under Section 43B. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this disallowance, leading to an appeal before the High Court. Citing relevant case law, including the judgment in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Court concluded that the liability was contingent upon an uncertain fact and thus not an allowable deduction under Section 43B. The Court relied on precedents such as Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT, and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT to support its decision. Therefore, the Court answered the first two questions affirmatively and against the assessee, partially allowing the appeal.

2. The second issue pertains to the disallowance of a sum representing a loss incurred due to the devaluation of the Rupee. The Court referred to the ruling in CIT vs. Woodword Governor India Pvt. Ltd. to determine the admissibility of such a loss. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in that case, the Court found the loss to be clearly admissible, contrary to the disallowance made by the Revenue. Consequently, the Court answered the third question in the affirmative, but in favor of the assessee. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed based on the Court's analysis and application of relevant legal principles and precedents.

---