INDIA CEMENTS LTD., MADRAS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1106/1964Supreme Court[1966] 2 S.C.R. 94408 December 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI INDIA CEMENTS LTD., MADRAS15 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The appellant, India Cements Ltd., obtained a loan of Rs. 40 lakhs from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India during the accounting year relevant for assessment year 1950-51. This loan was secured by a charge on the company's fixed assets. The company incurred an expenditure of Rs. 84,633 towards stamp duty, registration fees, drafting, and legal charges for obtaining this loan. This amount was initially shown as mortgage loan expenses in the balance sheet and later written off against profits in the accounting year ending March 31, 1953. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this expenditure, classifying it as capital expenditure. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held it to be revenue expenditure, distinguishing it from the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. case. The High Court, in reference, upheld the Income-tax Officer's view.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the expenditure of Rs. 84,633 was revenue expenditure and was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business. The Court reasoned that an outgoing to procure the use of a thing by which profit is made is deductible. The money secured by the loan was the 'thing' for which the expenditure was made. A loan itself cannot be treated as an asset or advantage of enduring benefit; it is a liability. The nature of the expenditure in raising a loan should not depend on the purpose of the loan, as the company might change its mind on how to utilize the funds. The Court found that the loan was voluntarily entered into to facilitate the running of the business. It also noted that the High Court erred in preferring the Income-tax Officer's findings of fact over the Appellate Tribunal's. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the question referred was answered in the affirmative.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 84,633 incurred by the assessee in obtaining the loan was revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Assessee's contentions: - The expenditure was not incurred to acquire an asset or advantage of an enduring nature. - The expenditure was applied wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. - The expenditure was admissible as a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv). Revenue's contentions: - The expenditure was incurred in obtaining capital and was therefore of a capital nature, not admissible under Section 10(2)(xv). - The case was distinguishable from the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. case, where money was expended for obtaining capital. - Even if revenue expenditure, it was not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(2)(xv),Section 10(2)(iii),Section 66(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

944 INDIA CEMENTS LTD., MADRAS v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS December 8, 1965 (K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.J Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, s. 10(2) (xv)--cLoan obtained by com· pany-Stamp duty and other exp.enditure incurred in obtaining the Joan-Whether· capital or revenue expenditure-Whether laid out for purpose of business.

During the accounting period relevant for the assessment yea'f 1950-51 the appellant company obtained a loan of 40 Jakhs of rupees from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India.

The loan was secured by a charge on the fixed assets of the company. A sum of Rs. 84,633 was shown in the Balance Sheet for the said accounting year as mortgage loan expenses; the sum was not cha-rged as expenditure in the pro.fit and loss account.

In the accounts for the accounting year ending March 31, 1953, this sum was written off by appropriation against profits of that year. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction; he held that the expenditure was incurred in obtaining capital and should be distinguish- ed from interest on borrowed capital which alone was admissible as a deduction under s. 10(2) (iii). Jn his

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(2)(xv)

All 90 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(2)(xv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →