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 rules against assessee on commutation charges not considered business loss under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Kailash Investment P. Limited Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax.</h3> Kailash Investment P. Limited Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax. - [2006] 281 ITR 92, 200 CTR 21, 153 TAXMANN 430 Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of commutation charges as business loss under Income-tax Act.2. Rejection of alternative claim for deduction under section 57(iii) of the Act.3. Rejection of claim for capital loss under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Disallowance of Commutation Charges as Business Loss:The case involved the disallowance of commutation charges of Rs. 12,01,782 as a business loss under sections 28 and 37 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the commutation by way of discount was related to a debt owed to the assessee on capital account, not qualifying as a business loss. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not engaged in the business of holding investments, and thus, the claim for deduction under sections 28 and 37 was not justified.Issue 2: Rejection of Deduction Claim under Section 57(iii) of the Act:The Tribunal rejected the alternative claim for deduction under section 57(iii) of the Act, stating that the transaction was on capital account, and the loss did not qualify as an expenditure for making or earning income. The Tribunal emphasized that no expenditure had been incurred for the purpose of earning income, as the debt was related to the issuance of share capital and was on capital account, leading to the denial of the deduction under section 57(iii).Issue 3: Rejection of Claim for Capital Loss under Section 45 of the Act:The Tribunal also rejected the second alternative contention for a claim of capital loss under section 45 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the original debt arose from the issuance of share capital and the loss was quantified upon commutation. However, it was emphasized that the loss actually occurred when the assessee accepted the debt payable against call money due, leading to the denial of the claim for capital loss.The court analyzed the definitions of 'capital asset' and 'transfer' under the Act, along with relevant case law, to determine if the commutation resulted in a capital loss. The court concluded that the nature of the payment remained consistent as call money towards shares issued by the assessee, without any change in the underlying asset. As the basic condition for invoking section 45 of the Act, i.e., transfer of a capital asset, was not fulfilled, the claim for capital loss was rejected.In conclusion, all three questions were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the commutation charges did not qualify as a business loss or deductible expenditure, and the claim for capital loss under section 45 was also denied.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
