9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Assessment year 1980-81 - Interpretation of various provisions including u/s 35B, u/s 37(3A), and u/r 6D of the Income-tax Act and Rules.
Assessment Year 1980-81 - Section 35B Interpretation: For the assessment year 1980-81, the court addressed the issue of weighted deduction claims under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court referred to a previous case and held that only the fee paid by the assessee to the export promotion council is eligible for weighted deduction. Other claims such as salary, interest, bank charges, and commission are not to be given weighted deduction. The benefit of section 35B is limited to the fee paid to the export promotion council. Additional Grounds Before Tribunal: The court considered whether an additional ground could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Citing a previous apex court decision, it was held that the Tribunal can entertain a new ground if the necessary facts are on record. The court ruled against the Revenue on this aspect. Section 35B Benefit for Interest Paid: Regarding the entitlement of the assessee to claim the benefit of section 35B for interest paid to the bank on export bill discounted, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue based on a previous decision. The question was answered in favor of the Revenue following the precedent set in a prior case. Commission Paid to Dealers - Disallowance under Section 37(3A): The court addressed the issue of whether commission paid to dealers should be included for disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Act. Citing a previous decision, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the commission paid to dealers should not be included for the purpose of disallowance. Interpretation of Rule 6D of Income-tax Rules: The court analyzed the interpretation of rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal's view that the computation under the rule should be made in respect of each travel undertaken by the employee was deemed incorrect. The court clarified that the computation should be made separately for each travel, and the deduction claimed should be the aggregate of the amounts calculated for each travel. A similar stance was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a previous case. Conclusion: The court answered the fourth question in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing that the computation under rule 6D should be made separately for each travel undertaken by the employee.
|
