9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act regarding deduction of expenses for a public limited company not yet operational. Analysis: The judgment involves a reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act regarding the permissibility of a deduction of Rs. 6,000 under Section 12. The Commissioner of Income-tax raised concerns about the principles followed by the Tribunal in allowing the deduction, rather than the specific amount. The assessee, a spinning and weaving company in its second year of existence, had not yet commenced business but had derived income from interest and investments. The Tribunal estimated allowable expenditure at Rs. 6,000 against the interest income assessed under Section 12. The Tribunal's reasoning for allowing the deduction was based on the necessity of maintaining an establishment to keep the company alive, despite being at a development stage without business income. However, the judgment criticized this approach as erroneous, emphasizing that deductions under Section 12 should be solely for expenses incurred in earning the income. The judgment highlighted that claims for office and establishment expenses unrelated to income generation were impermissible under Section 12. The judgment referenced a decision by the Madras High Court, emphasizing that only actual expenses incurred in earning the income could be deducted. It rejected the idea of allowing deductions for expenses necessary to keep the company alive when no business income was present. The judgment clarified that deductions under Section 12 should align with the specific allowances provided in the section and not extend to personal or non-income-related expenses. Ultimately, the judgment maintained the Rs. 6,000 deduction but clarified that it should be based on the estimated expenditure for earning the interest income, not on the Tribunal's broader principles. The judgment concluded that the deduction was permissible only on the basis of actual expenses incurred for income generation, as required by Section 12. No costs were awarded due to the preservation of the deduction amount. In a concurring opinion, Lahiri, J., agreed with the analysis and decision of the Chief Justice regarding the interpretation and application of Section 12 in the context of the case.
|
