1979 (1) TMI 42 - HC - Income Tax

Dispute Over Share Loss Classification: Revenue vs. Capital Loss Decision

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay City I Versus Pitty Brothers Private Limited

The case involved a dispute over whether the loss incurred by an assessee-company on shares of a company in liquidation should be classified as a revenue ... Bad Debt, Managing Agent, Revenue Loss, Voluntary Liquidation Issues:1. Whether the loss incurred by the assessee-company on the shares of a company that went into liquidation should be treated as a revenue loss or a capital loss.Analysis:The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising from a decision of the Tribunal regarding the assessment year 1964-65. The assessee-company, a private limited company engaged in various businesses including share-dealing, had purchased shares of a company that later went into liquidation. The liquidator informed the assessee that there would be no returns for the shareholders. The assessee wrote off the value of the shares in its accounts and claimed it as a revenue loss or a loss under 'Capital gains.' The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim, stating that the shares were purchased at an inflated price to accommodate an allied concern. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision, concluding that the shares were not acquired for trading purposes. The Tribunal, however, allowed the loss as a revenue loss, emphasizing that the purchase was bona fide and the write-off was in accordance with proper accounting procedures.The Tribunal considered various factors, including the relationship between the assessee-company and the company whose shares were purchased, the price paid for the shares, and the prospects of the company at the time of purchase. It found that the shares were held like other trading shares and allowed the loss as a revenue loss. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, stating that the close connection between the companies did not necessarily mean the purchase was not for trading purposes. The Court also noted that the price paid for the shares was not inflated, considering the break-up value at the time of purchase. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to treat the loss as a revenue loss was valid, and the question was answered in favor of the assessee.In summary, the judgment addressed the classification of a loss on shares of a company in liquidation as a revenue loss or a capital loss. The courts examined the circumstances of the purchase, the relationship between the parties, and the pricing of the shares to determine the nature of the loss. Ultimately, the Tribunal and the High Court held that the loss should be treated as a revenue loss, emphasizing the bona fide nature of the purchase and the proper accounting treatment of the write-off.