Foreign collaborator's payment to extinguish bank guarantee not company income under Income Tax Act

The High Court of Bombay ruled that a payment made by foreign collaborators to partially extinguish a bank guarantee arranged for a company did not constitute the company's income under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the payment was made to discharge the collaborators' own liability, not to benefit the company directly. Therefore, the court dismissed the Revenue's application, emphasizing that the payment did not represent a benefit arising from the company's business. This judgment clarifies the distinction between payments made by guarantors to creditors and payments made directly to benefit debtors.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding treatment of a payment received by a company from foreign collaborators for partial discharge of liability.

Summary:
The High Court of Bombay heard a case involving a public limited company engaged in manufacturing electrodes in collaboration with a foreign company. The foreign collaborators arranged a bank guarantee for the company to obtain a loan. When the company faced financial difficulties, the foreign collaborators made a payment of Rs. 5 lakhs to partially extinguish the guarantee. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated this payment as part of the company's income under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company appealed, and the Tribunal upheld the company's contention. The Revenue then sought to raise questions for reference to the court, but the Tribunal declined. The Revenue made an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the payment constituted the company's income. However, the Tribunal found that the payment was made by the foreign collaborators to the bank, not to the company directly. The court noted that the foreign collaborators were discharging their own liability, and the company's liability to the bank remained. The court concluded that the payment did not represent a benefit arising from the company's business. Therefore, the court dismissed the application.

This judgment clarifies the distinction between a payment made by a guarantor to a creditor and a payment made directly to benefit a debtor. The court emphasized that the payment made by the foreign collaborators was to discharge their own liability, not to benefit the company directly. As a result, the court held that the payment did not constitute a benefit arising from the company's business, and therefore, it was not considered as part of the company's income under section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---