9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Nature of expenditure (capital or revenue) and its applicability under Section 37(3A). 3. Entitlement to deduction under Section 37(3A). 4. Treatment of subsidy received by the assessee as income. 5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in considering claims not raised before lower authorities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The court emphasized the need to understand and interpret Section 37(3A) in the context of its non-obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)." The court noted that Section 37(1) allows for the deduction of expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, with exceptions for capital expenditure and personal expenses. However, Section 37(3A) and subsequent sub-sections, prefixed with the same non-obstante clause, operate independently of Section 37(1). The court clarified that the non-obstante clause in Section 37(3A) means that the nature of the expenditure (whether capital or revenue) is irrelevant for its application. 2. Nature of Expenditure (Capital or Revenue) and its Applicability under Section 37(3A): The court held that the nature of the expenditure, whether capital or revenue, is not relevant under Section 37(3A). This section deals with aggregate expenditure on specified items such as advertisement, publicity, and sales promotion, and disallows 20% of the excess amount over Rs. 100,000. The court cited the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision in Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. CIT, which stated that the relevant consideration under Section 37(3) is the conditions and restrictions within that sub-section, not whether the expenditure is of a capital or revenue nature. 3. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 37(3A): The court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation by considering the nature of the expenditure and the specific business of the assessee (film production and exhibition). The court reiterated that the non-obstante clause in Section 37(3A) excludes considerations of the nature of the expenditure. The Tribunal's approach of excluding certain expenditures as capital in nature was incorrect. The court directed that the application of Section 37(3A) should be based on the aggregate expenditure without regard to its capital or revenue nature. 4. Treatment of Subsidy Received by the Assessee as Income: The court referred to its earlier decision in CIT v. Udaya Pictures (P.) Ltd., where it was held that the subsidy received by the assessee constitutes income in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year in question. The court followed this precedent and concluded that the subsidy received by the assessee is indeed income. 5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in Considering Claims Not Raised Before Lower Authorities: The court addressed whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider claims not raised before the first appellate authority or the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal had allowed a claim for E.S.A. for the studio's main floor, which was not claimed before the lower authorities. The court found that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by considering and allowing this claim. The Tribunal should not have entertained claims that were not raised in accordance with the procedural requirements. Conclusion: The court answered the questions referred as follows: - Income-tax Reference No. 88 of 1992: - Question No. 1: Answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue. - Question No. 2: Answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue. - Question No. 3: Answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue. - Income-tax Reference No. 53 of 1991: - Question No. 1: Answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue. - Question No. 2: Answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue. The court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
|
