9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment addresses questions regarding the applicability of sections 40A(5)(b), 40(c), and 10(6)(viia) of the Income-tax Act, as well as the deduction of surtax under the Companies Profit (Surtax) Act, 1964. Question 1: The first issue involves whether the provision of section 40A(5)(b) applies to the disallowance under section 40(c) concerning the remuneration of a director and foreign technician, exempted under section 10(6)(viia). The court ruled in favor of the assessee based on the precedent set in CIT v. Lucas TVS Ltd. [1997] 226 ITR 281, stating that the exempted amount should not be considered for fixing the ceiling under section 40(c) read with section 40A(5). Question 2: The second issue pertains to the liability for liquidated damages for breach of contract and its treatment in computing the assessee's income. The Assessing Officer noted the company's estimation of compensation payable for delays in supplying materials to Electricity Boards. The Tribunal held that the liability for damages was not properly established, as the delay must be proven to be the assessee's failure, which was disputed. The court agreed with the Revenue that the liability was not accrued and could not be claimed as a deduction under the mercantile system of accounting. Question 3: The final issue concerns the deduction of surtax paid under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, while computing the total income under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Following the decision in Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 581, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the surtax paid is not required to be deducted from the total income. This judgment provides detailed analysis and application of relevant legal provisions to resolve the issues raised by the Revenue and the assessee, ensuring clarity on the tax treatment of various aspects under the Income-tax Act and the Companies Profit (Surtax) Act, 1964.
|
