9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment addresses the allowance of rebate to members of a cooperative society as a deduction in computing the society's total income for assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83. The key issues revolve around whether the payment of rebate constitutes a business expenditure and whether the rebate distribution is considered a distribution of profits to members under the Co-operative Societies Act.
For assessment year 1980-81: The Income-tax Officer initially allowed the rebate as a deduction, but upon a revision for the next assessment year, the rebate was disallowed. The Appellate Tribunal held that there was no provision to disallow the rebate as a deduction, indicating that the rebate was related to a provisional price and should be allowed as a deduction in appropriating trading profits. For assessment year 1981-82: The Commissioner of Income-tax disallowed the rebate given by the society, stating it was an appropriation of profits and cannot be allowed as a deduction. The Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the rebate was related to a provisional price and should be allowed as a deduction in appropriating trading profits. For assessment year 1982-83: The Income-tax Officer allowed the deduction of rebate only to the extent of business profits, which was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The questions referred to the court by the Revenue focused on whether the rebate payment was wholly and exclusively incurred for the business and if the appropriation of profits as rebate was not a distribution of profits to members. Court's Analysis: The court considered the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the bye-laws, emphasizing that the Act provides for the disposal of net profits, including the transfer to a reserve fund and the utilization of the balance for rebate payments to members. The court highlighted specific bye-law provisions related to rebate distribution among members based on purchases made during the year. Government Orders: The court referenced Government orders exempting the society from certain rules to enable the declaration of rebates on purchases made by members, indicating that the rebate served as a special incentive for increasing business. The court noted that the rebate reduced the price at which goods were sold to members, impacting the society's trading account. Legal Precedents: The court cited legal precedents, including the decision in Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT, to support the view that rebate payments reduce the profit received by the society and are not considered business expenditure. The court emphasized the distinction between deductions for ascertaining profits and distributions made out of profits, highlighting that the amount returned as rebate is not part of the profit. Conclusion: After considering the arguments and legal principles, the court found the decision of the Tribunal reasonable. It concluded that the rebate payments were related to the provisional price of goods sold, reducing the society's income, and were not to be considered as business expenditure. The court answered the questions in the affirmative, ruling against the Revenue's contention regarding the allowance of rebate as a deduction.
|
