Legal Reference Library

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 mean...

The Tax Court of Cologne has ordered a minority shareholder to pay income and sales tax (case no. 13 K 3023/13). The shareholder was making a business out of systematically raising legal challenges and then being persuaded to withdraw his claims in return for a lavish settlement. The man cashed up to five-figure sums through his attorneys in return for dropping his objection to necessary capital increases, for example. As his holdings were in each case small (between € 10 – 500), the tax court assumed that the aim of the challenges was not the assertion of a claim for compensation. What the man in fact wanted was just one thing: to capitalize as a shareholder from his power to adopt an obstructionist position. The Tax Court of Cologne interpreted this as a long-term activity. This serves to underline the system that lies behind it. After all, the accused shareholder had been acting in exactly this manner for years, not only in his own name but also in that of a limited liability compa...

Spentex Industries Ltd vs. CCE (Supreme Court) The Supreme Court was concerned with whether or not the manufacturer/exporter is entitled to rebate of the excise duty paid both on the inputs and on the manufactured product, when excise duty is paid on a manufactured product and also on the inputs which have gone into manufacturing the product and such manufactured product is exported? HELD in that context by the Court: (i) It is to be borne in mind that it is the Central Government which has framed the Rules as well as issued the notifications. If the Central Government itself is of the opinion that the rebate is to be allowed on both the forms of excise duties the government is bound thereby and the rule in-question has to interpreted in accord with this understanding of the rule maker itself. Law in this respect is well settled and, therefore, it is not necessary to burden this judgment by quoting from various decisions. Our purpose would be served by referring to one such decisi...

The Bombay High Court last week ruled that expenses incurred by a professional going abroad for treatment of eye is not eligible for income tax deduction. The assessee in this case, Dhimant Thakar vs CIT, was a lawyer and he argued that good vision was important for pursuing his profession. His claim for the assessment year 1986-87 was rejected by the revenue authorities. His appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who observed that if the logic of the lawyer was stretched, it would mean that even expenditure incurred on food to preserve oneself should be treated as allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as being incurred for business or profession. On appeal, the high court upheld the view of the authorities observing that "eyes are essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many. It is therefore clear that the said expenditure as claimed by the professional is not in th...

If two companies have to be declared 'related persons' for excise purposes, there should be mutuality of interest in the business of each other. If there is only 'one-way traffic', the two companies are not related. The revenue authorities must prove mutuality of interest or "two-way traffic", Supreme Court stated while dismissing the appeal of the commissioner of central excise against the order of the appellate tribunal in a case involving Goodyear South Asia Tyres Ltd. The company in this case was a joint venture of RPG SATL and Goodyear. It manufactured and supplied tyres exclusively to Ceat and Goodyear sold in their brand names. Goodyear and RPG Ceat had 50:50 shares in the assessee company. The excise authorities issued demand notice to the company on the basis of related persons under section 4 of the Excise Act. The company contended that its sale of tyres to the two companies was on principal to principal basis and at arm's length. The commission...