9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 35CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction of expenditure incurred for a rural development program before approval by the prescribed authority. Analysis: The judgment involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the entitlement of an assessee to a deduction under section 35CC for expenditure incurred prior to the approval of a rural development program. The assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes, implemented a rural development program between October 1, 1977, and September 30, 1978, seeking approval from the prescribed authority on December 12, 1977. The authority approved the program with effect from February 21, 1978. The Income-tax Officer allowed deduction only for the period from February 21, 1978, to September 30, 1978, denying the expenditure incurred before that date. The Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the decision, leading to the reference to the High Court. The main contention revolved around the interpretation of section 35CC, which allows a deduction for expenditure on a rural development program subject to obtaining approval from the prescribed authority before incurring the expenditure. The court emphasized that approval is a prerequisite for deduction, as highlighted in the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1977. The order of approval by the prescribed authority is crucial, and the extent of deductibility depends on the scope of that approval. The court noted that the approval granted was specific to the period from February 21, 1978, onwards, indicating that expenditure before that date was not approved. The court rejected the argument that the approval was for the program and not the expenditure, emphasizing that the approval must precede incurring the expenditure. Drawing parallels with other cases, such as CIT v. Birla Bros. P. Ltd., the court clarified that the date mentioned in the approval order is not merely recommendatory but essential for determining deductibility. Referring to CIT v. Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd., the court reiterated that the requirement of approval is not a procedural formality but a mandatory condition for claiming deductions under such provisions. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction for the expenditure incurred before the approval date specified by the prescribed authority. The judgment underscores the importance of compliance with statutory requirements for claiming deductions under specific provisions of the Income-tax Act.
|
