9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allowability of compensation paid to workers as revenue expenditure. Analysis: The case involved the assessee-company, which had a manufacturing and trading unit. The manufacturing unit was closed down, leading to the payment of compensation to workers. Initially, the Income-tax Officer allowed the deduction of the compensation as revenue expenditure. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax initiated revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, contending that such payments were not admissible as revenue expenditure. The Commissioner held that the expenditure related to the discontinued business was of a capital nature and, therefore, not allowable as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, relying on previous judgments and confirming that the compensation paid was of a capital nature and not allowable as revenue expenditure. Regarding the question of law referred to the court, the Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that the compensation paid to workers should be considered revenue expenditure. The court considered a previous Division Bench decision where it was held that compensation payable under section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the closure of a business cannot be considered an expenditure incurred for carrying on the business. The court reiterated that such compensation is for the closing down of the business and not for the business's operation. Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation [1967] 65 ITR 643, the court concluded that the compensation paid to workers in this case was not allowable as revenue expenditure. Ultimately, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the compensation paid to workers pursuant to the Industrial Tribunal's award under section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not allowable as revenue expenditure. The case was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
