9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of sections 28, 37(3A), and 37(3D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically addressing the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 and the disallowance under section 37(3A) for multiple businesses carried on by the assessee. Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 263: The High Court considered the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 263, finding it unjustifiable based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessment year in question was 1979-80, with the total income of the assessee determined at Rs. 78,950. The Commissioner contended that the deduction under section 37 for advertisement expenses exceeded the allowable limit. However, the High Court held that the Commissioner failed to establish how the situation was prejudicial to the Revenue, a statutory requirement for invoking section 263. Disallowance under Section 37(3A) for Multiple Businesses: The Tribunal analyzed whether the disallowance under section 37(3A) should be applied to each business activity separately. The Tribunal bifurcated the expenses incurred for advertisement, publicity, and business promotion between two concerns run by the assessee. Relying on legal precedents and the Department Circular No. 240, the Tribunal concluded that each business activity should be considered independently for the application of section 37(3A). The Tribunal found the excess amount in one concern to be marginal, not justifying the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling against the Revenue on the assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 and declining to answer the question regarding the disallowance under section 37. The judgment emphasized the need for statutory satisfaction to invoke section 263 and deferred consideration of multiple business activities under section 37 to a more appropriate case. The Court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to take consequential orders based on the judgment.
|
