Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Shri Parag Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Department submitted that, in this case, the assessee(s) claims deduction under Section 37, which is a residuary provision, as there is no specific provision dealing with adjustment based on foreign exchange fluctuations on the Revenue account (akin to Section 43A, which deals with such adjustments in the Capital account). According to the learned counsel, the essence of deductibility under Section 37 is that the increase in liability due to foreign exchange fluctuations must fulfill the twin requirements of "expenditure" and the factum of such expenditure having been "laid out or expended". According to the learned counsel, the expression "expenditure" is "what is paid out" and "something which is gone irretrievably". In this connection, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Indian Molasses Co. (Private) Ltd. v. CIT reported in 37 ITR 66. According to the learned counsel, the increase in liability at any point of time prior to payment cannot fall within the meaning of the word "expenditure" in Section 37(1). Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the requirement of expenditure is not met in this case. According to the learned counsel, similarly the requirement of money being "expended or laid out" is also not satisfied and thus additional liability arising on account of fluctuation in foreign exchange rate is not deductible under Section 37(1).

26. Shri Parag Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that in Section 43A (as it stood prior to Finance Act, 2002) the expression "for making payment" is in the context of increase or decrease of liability and the same hinges on "making the payment towards the whole or a part of ...". According to the learned counsel, the expression "towards the whole or a part of" makes it clear that Section 43A as it stood referred to whole or a part of the payment and therefore to the point of payment. According to the learned counsel, under the pre-amended Section 43A, the effect of increase or decrease of liability arose only at the point of payment because the point of accrual shifted to the point of payment. In this connection, learned counsel urged that the difference between accrual and payment of a liability is that normally the point of accrual and the point of payment represent two different time milestones. However, according to the learned counsel, in the case of a contingent liability, like that of foreign exchange fluctuations, the point of accrual and the point of payment become the same. According to the learned counsel, under the pre-amended dispensation of Section 43A, the effect of increase or decrease of liability could only arise at the point of payment, as the point of accrual shifts to the point of payment.