Skip to main content

Ruling on business expenditure

Interest paid by a company on borrowings from banks to advance money to its own subsidiary is 'business expenditure' on which tax deduction can be claimed, the Supreme Court has ruled in its judgment, Hero Cycles Ltd vs CIT. In this case, the company which was the promoter of Hero Fibres Ltd, took loans and paid interest on it. The money was paid to the sister concern due to business expediency in view of an undertaking given to financial institutions that it would provide additional margin to meet working capital for meeting any cash losses. When the company claimed deduction on it as business expenditure, the revenue authorities denied it. The company moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court but it dismissed the appeal maintaining that when loans were taken from banks at which interest was paid for purposes of business, the interest component could not be claimed as business expenditure. The company moved the Supreme Court. Allowing its appeal, the apex court gave a wider meaning to the phrase business expenditure. The judgment explained that the advance given to the sister concern was imperative. "The revenue authorities cannot put themselves in the arm chair of the businessman or in the position of the board of directors and assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure. The authorities cannot decide how a prudent businessman would act," the judgment said.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/family-accord-prevails-over-law-suits-115120600838_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more