1997 (4) TMI 20 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of surtax liabilities as a deduction in income computation.
2. Inclusion of commission paid to directors in the computation of disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Allowability of Surtax Liabilities
The court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Smith Kline French (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 581, which established that surtax paid is not an allowable deduction in computing business income. Following this precedent, the court answered the first question in the affirmative against the assessee.

Issue 2: Inclusion of Commission Paid to Directors
The dispute revolved around the interpretation of section 40(c) of the Act concerning commission paid to directors. The Income-tax Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Appellate Tribunal all agreed that the commission paid to directors should be part of remuneration for the purpose of disallowance under section 40(c). The assessee argued that section 40(c) does not apply to directors who are not full-time. However, the court held that section 40(c) applies to all directors, irrespective of full-time or part-time status. The court interpreted "remuneration" in a broad sense, including commissions paid for work done. Citing Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 117 ITR 1, the court affirmed that commissions can be considered as remuneration. Therefore, the court upheld the inclusion of commission paid to directors in the computation of disallowance under section 40(c) of the Act. The second question was answered in the affirmative against the assessee.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue on both issues, disallowing surtax liabilities as a deduction and affirming the inclusion of commission paid to directors in the computation of disallowance under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act.