2007 (4) TMI 260 - HC - Income Tax

Business Expenditure Advance tax - held that amount paid to managerial personal on account of gratuity paid, reimbursement of medical expenditure and HRA not hit by provision of 40A(5), allowed Amount paid under section 43B before filing of return was allowed by CIT(A) and ITAT confirmed - the amendment introduced by Finance Act, 1987, to section 43B was merely of clarificatory nature and applicable with retrospective effect - The interest has been levied under section 216 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had under estimated the income under section 209A and section 212 of the Act. Under section 209A of the Act, the first two instalments were to be paid in accordance with the income of the previous year which the assessee has complied with. So far as the third instalment is concerned, the assessee has paid the advance tax according to the revised estimate and there is no violation of the provisions of section 209A of the Act. interest not to be charged u/s 216

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 40A(5) regarding disallowance of certain allowances to managerial personnel.
2. Application of section 43B for disallowance of outstanding liabilities.
3. Charging of interest under section 216 for advance tax payments.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the interpretation of section 40A(5) concerning the disallowance of certain allowances provided to managerial personnel. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amounts under this provision, but the assessee argued citing various judicial decisions. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal sided with the assessee, leading to the question of whether the ITAT was legally justified in confirming the relief. The High Court, considering relevant precedents, ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing decisions like CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. P. Ltd.

2. The second issue involves the application of section 43B for disallowing outstanding liabilities not paid by the assessee. The Assessing Officer added back certain amounts under this section, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed, relying on precedents and the retrospective nature of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1987. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, citing judgments from various High Courts. The High Court concurred with this view, emphasizing the retrospective applicability of the amendment and ruled in favor of the assessee based on the decision in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT.

3. The final issue concerns the charging of interest under section 216 for advance tax payments. The Assessing Officer levied interest, but the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found no grounds for such charges based on the assessee's compliance with relevant provisions. The High Court examined the payment history of the assessee and concluded that interest under section 216 was not applicable in this case. The Court highlighted the proper adherence to tax payment requirements and ruled in favor of the assessee, citing section 209A and section 212 of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court answered all three questions in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the legal interpretations and precedents supporting the decisions made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The judgment provided detailed reasoning for each issue, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of the legal aspects involved.