2004 PLP 2147 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus KODAK INDIA LTD.
| Citation | 2004 PLP 2147 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 253 I T R 445 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and Brijesh Kumar, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus KODAK INDIA LTD. |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2147 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 2147 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 253 I T R 445 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2147 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus KODAK INDIA LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Soli J. Sorabji, Attorney‑General of India (Pritesh Kapur, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Susma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
- F.V.Irani, Senior Advocate (S. Balakrishnan, Atul Y. Chitale and Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Advocates with him) for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated March 20, 1997 of the Bombay High Court in I. T. R. No. 97 of 1988). ‑‑‑‑Capital or Revenue expenditure‑‑‑Company‑‑‑Increase of Capital pursuant to direction of Reserve Bank to reduce non‑residential holding to 40 per cent.‑‑‑Is capital expenditure. Where the assessee‑Company incurred expenditure for the public issue of shares to increase its share capital pursuant to a direction of the Reserve Bank to do so to reduce its non‑residential holding to 40 per cent.: Held, that the expenditure was capital expenditure. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) fol.
Judgment & Decree
Where the assessee‑Company incurred expenditure for the public issue of shares to increase its share capital pursuant to a direction of the Reserve Bank to do so to reduce its non‑residential holding to 40 per cent.: Held, that the expenditure was capital expenditure. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC) fol. Soli J. Sorabji, Attorney‑General of India (Pritesh Kapur, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Susma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. F.V.Irani, Senior Advocate (S. Balakrishnan, Atul Y. Chitale and Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Advocates with him) for Respondent. The notice that was issued had stated that the matter appeared to be covered by the decision of this Court in Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR
792. We find, now that we have heard learned counsel, that it is so covered. Learned counsel for the assessee stressed that in the instant case, the assessee had acted to increase its share capital because it had been directed by the Reserve Bank of India so to do. This was because it had to reduce its non‑residential holding to forty per cent. It was learned counsel's submission that the only way in which the assessee could do business after the Reserve Bank directive was to issue share capital to comply with it. In his submission, therefore, the decision of this Court in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 was distinguishable. Whichever way we look at it, the object of the assessee was to .increase its share capital; whether it did so to continue to do business after the Reserve Bank directive or otherwise, the case is covered by the judgment in the case of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 225 ITR 792 (SC). The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order under appeal set aside. The question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In other words, the expenditure of Rs.8,07,624 incurred for the public issue of shares was capital expenditure. No order as to costs. M.B.A./1104/FC Appeal allowed.