9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Disallowance of business expenditure on advertisements. 2. Interpretation of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Comparison of expenditure with previous years. 4. Commercial expediency in determining business expenditure. Analysis: The High Court of GAUHATI addressed the issue of disallowing Rs. 55,000 as a business expenditure on advertisements in souvenirs published by specific entities. The assessee, a registered firm, incurred these expenses based on advice from its principal, Indian Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd. However, the Income-tax Officer viewed these payments as donations in disguise, not falling under allowable business expenditure. The Officer referred to a previous case to support this stance. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance, citing lack of commercial expediency and nexus between the expenditure and business benefits. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a prior case involving Jyoti Flour Mills. The legal arguments presented by counsels focused on the interpretation of section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's counsel relied on a previous case to assert that advertisement expenditure might not qualify as allowable business expenditure. In contrast, the assessee's counsel argued against the comparative approach used by the Assessing Officer, citing Supreme Court decisions emphasizing commercial expediency and the businessman's perspective in determining business expenditure. The counsel referred to specific cases to support their arguments. The court examined the legislative history of section 37 and emphasized the importance of commercial expediency in determining business expenditure. It distinguished between expenses incurred for business purposes and those made for improper motives or gratuitously. The court highlighted the broader scope of "for the purpose of the business" compared to "for the purpose of earning profits," citing relevant Supreme Court decisions. The court also discussed a Full Bench decision supporting the allowance of certain donations as business expenditure. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, considering the commercial expediency from a businessman's standpoint. The court emphasized that the emergency period during the assessment year should be factored in when evaluating the expenditure on advertisements. The judgment concluded that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business, aligning with the principles governing commercial trading and the businessman's perspective.
|
