9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of section 37(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction of expenditure on maintenance of guest house and depreciation on building used as a guest house.
Analysis: The High Court of Madras was presented with a question of law regarding the deduction of expenditure incurred on the maintenance of a guest house and depreciation on the building used as a guest house by a public limited company for the assessment year 1978-79. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the claim of the assessee for both the expenditure and depreciation. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the claim, leading to an appeal by the Revenue to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, affirming the entitlement of the assessee to the deduction of both the expenditure and depreciation in computing income. The Revenue argued that the Explanation introduced in sub-section (5) of section 37 of the Income-tax Act is retrospective, thereby precluding the assessee from claiming the deduction. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the retrospective effect of the Explanation, introduced by the Finance Act, 1983, does not apply to the assessment year in question, as it only operates from April 1, 1979. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 37(5) and noted that it pertains to accommodations maintained for providing boarding or lodging, treating them as guest houses from April 1, 1979, onwards. Referring to a previous decision, the court held that the expenses incurred by the assessee are allowable in computing business income, as the guest house in question did not fall under the definition of a "guest house" under section 37(4) of the Act. Ultimately, the High Court found no fault in the Appellate Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and allowing the deduction of the expenditure on the maintenance of the guest house and the depreciation on the building used as a guest house. The court answered the question of law in the affirmative, against the Department, emphasizing that the provisions of section 37(5) did not apply to the case at hand due to the limited retrospective effect of the relevant amendment.
|
