Allowed

The Indian Standard Metalco. Ltd. v. the C.I.T. C-I, Bombay

Bombay HC8 Aug 2016ITR/941/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Income Tax Reference seeks the Court's opinion on whether exchange differences incurred on repayment of foreign loans were revenue expenditure. The Court relied on earlier precedents to conclude that the claim was not a revenue expenditure and disposed of the reference in favor of the Revenue.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of Reference under Section 256(1) IT Act, 1961 in favor of the Respondent-Revenue.

The Indian Standard Metalco. Ltd. Vs the C.I.T. C-I, Bombay — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2016)

ITR-941.98.doc

Sbw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.941 OF 1998

¶6

The Indian Standard Metal Co. Ltd. ..Applicant Versus

¶7

The Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City-I, Bombay. ..Respondent

¶8

Mr. H. Toor a/w Sameer Chitnis i/b. M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. for the applicant.

¶9

CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 10^th AUGUST, 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Mr. Toor, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-assessee in support of the Reference files an affidavit of service dated 26^th July, 2016 with evidence of having served the Reference upon the RespondentRevenue on 1^st April, 1999.

¶13

By this Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) seeks our opinion on the following question of law:-

¶14

“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the total amount of Rs.1,76,564/- representing difference in exchange, incurred by the assessee in repayment

¶15

2 ITR-941.98.doc

¶16

of Foreign Exchange loans and debited on their Accounts during the previous year 1974 to the extent of Rs.1,63,196/on a provision basis and to the extent of Rs.13,368/- on actual remittance basis during the year 1975, was a revenue expenditure?”

¶17

Mr. Toor, the learned counsel for the applicant-assessee very fairly states that the issue arising herein stands concluded against the applicantassessee and in favour of the Respondent-Revenue by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. 207 ITR 670 and Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Sandoz (India) Ltd. 206 ITR 599 .

¶18

In the above view, the question as posed for our opinion is answered

¶19

in the negative i.e. in favour of the Respondent-Revenue and against the applicant-assessee.

¶20

Reference is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.

¶21

wadhwa

The Indian Standard Metalco. Ltd. v. the C.I.T. C-I, Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Indian Standard Metalco. Ltd. v. the C.I.T. C-I, Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The C.I.T.Pune. Vs Kirloskar Brothers Ltd.

Naath Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs the C.I.T. City-v

The C.I.T.Nashik. Vs Shrigonda S.S.K.Ltd.

Cadbury-Fry (India)Pvt. Ltd.Now Known as Cadbury India Ltd. Vs the C.I.T.Bombay.

Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs the C.I.T.Bombay.

Jeewan Ltd. Vs C.I.T.B.C.Iii