2003 (5) TMI 52 - HC - Income Tax

Whether the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the increase of only Rs. 100 per month in the salaries of three employees, namely, Shri Ali Ahmed, Mohd. Ali and Ajaz Ahmad, shall be reasonable or is arbitrary and in ignorance of the conditions laid down in section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act? - we hold that the increase in the salary of employees, namely, Ajaz Ahmad and Ali Ahmad, is reasonable and that of Mohammad Ali is unreasonable taking into account the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 40A of the Act. - Our answer to the question referred to above is decided partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Determining reasonableness of salary increase under section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a question regarding the reasonableness of salary increases for three employees by a registered firm. The Income-tax Officer deemed the salary increases as unreasonable and not based on commercial expediency. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this view with a minor observation on a typographical error. The Appellate Tribunal found one salary increase reasonable but deemed the other two as unjustified. The issue revolved around the interpretation of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 40A of the Income-tax Act, which disallows excessive or unreasonable expenditure. The reasonableness of a salary increase is determined by considering the fair market value of services and legitimate business needs. Employers must provide material to justify salary increases, and if the increase is based on market value and business needs, it is considered reasonable.

The court analyzed the percentage increase in salaries for the employees in question. While one salary increase was deemed reasonable at 12.5%, the other two were considered unreasonable at 20% and 80% respectively. The court emphasized that a disproportionate increase must be supported by exceptional circumstances. In this case, the salary increase of one employee was found to be reasonable, while the other two were deemed unreasonable due to lack of evidence supporting the disproportionate increases. The judgment was partly in favor of the assessee and partly in favor of the Revenue, with each party bearing their own costs.