TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies bad debt exemption for guarantee not related to business activities.</h1> <h3>Brij Mohan Laxmi Narain Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi</h3> Brij Mohan Laxmi Narain Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi - [1959] 36 ITR 147 (Pun) Issues:1. Whether the transaction in question relates to the money-lending business of the applicantRs.2. Whether the claim of Rs. 1,15,449 was admissible as a bad debt under section 10(2)(xi) or as a loss qua money-lending businessRs.3. Whether the claim of Rs. 1,15,449 is admissible as a business deduction under section 10(2)(xv) or in general terms of the Income-tax ActRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The case involves a firm engaged in money-lending business, with the main source of income being money-lending. The firm provided loans to another company and also gave a guarantee to a bank on behalf of that company. The court assessed whether the guarantee transaction was directly related to the money-lending business of the firm. The court concluded that the guarantee did not arise out of the money-lending business and lacked a direct connection to it. The court emphasized that the guarantee did not involve actual lending of money and the connection was too remote to be considered part of the ordinary business activities of the firm.Issue 2:Regarding the claim of Rs. 1,15,449 as a bad debt under section 10(2)(xi) or as a loss related to the money-lending business, the court analyzed previous rulings. The court distinguished cases where bad debts were directly related to the ordinary business activities of the assessee from the current scenario. The court highlighted that the loss in this case, arising from the guarantee transaction, was not a direct consequence of the money-lending business. Therefore, the court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under section 10(2)(xi) for the amount in question.Issue 3:In assessing whether the claim of Rs. 1,15,449 was admissible as a business deduction under section 10(2)(xv) or the general terms of the Income-tax Act, the court examined the nature of the transaction. The court emphasized that the guarantee transaction did not fall within the scope of section 10(2)(xv) as it was not directly linked to the money-lending business. The court concluded that the enforcement of the guarantee did not result in losses in business but rather represented a loss in capital. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under section 10(2)(xv) or the general provisions of the Income-tax Act.In conclusion, the court answered the reference questions accordingly, ruling against the assessee. The court also directed the assessee to pay the costs of the proceedings.
TaxTMI 