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>Interpretation of Release Deed for Debt Remission under Income-tax Act, 1961: Year Discrepancy Resolved</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax, Poona Versus Manohar Bandhu</h3> Commissioner of Income-Tax, Poona Versus Manohar Bandhu - [1984] 148 ITR 108, 37 CTR 184, 13 TAXMANN 99 Issues: Interpretation of release deed for debt remission in the context of Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved a case where the assessee had purchased goods from a commission agent and faced financial difficulties, resulting in outstanding liabilities. The commission agent accepted a partial payment in full settlement of the debt. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated this as remission under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1966-67 and added the amount to the assessee's income. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) upheld the decision. However, the Tribunal concluded that the creditor had agreed to remission earlier, and the amount should not be taxed in the assessment year 1966-67. The Tribunal held that the correct amount of remission should be excluded from the income computation for that year.Regarding the interpretation of the release deed, the High Court analyzed whether the remission occurred in Samvat year 2010 or 2021. The Revenue contended that the remission was effective in S.Y. 2021 based on the accounts of the creditor and the recitals in the release deed. The Court agreed with the Revenue, emphasizing that the crucial recital in the release deed referred to the balance outstanding at the end of S.Y. 2021, not S.Y. 2010. The liability relieved was Rs. 53,265, which occurred in S.Y. 2021, as per the deed's terms.The Court rejected the assessee's argument that the remission happened in S.Y. 2010 based on the outstanding amount at that time. It clarified that the actual agreement accepting Rs. 16,000 in lieu of Rs. 53,265 determined the remission date, which was in S.Y. 2021. Consequently, the Court answered both questions in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the remission occurred in S.Y. 2021 and the amount should not be included in the income computation for the assessment year 1966-67. No costs were awarded in this case.
TaxTMI 