9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the treatment of repair expenses incurred by an assessee for the portion of premises occupied by an employee in calculating disallowance as perquisite. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1980-81, concerning the treatment of repair expenses incurred by an assessee for the portion of premises occupied by an employee in calculating disallowance as perquisite under section 40A(5) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenses, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance. The department appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the Commissioner's decision based on the company's obligation to maintain the property it owned, where repairs were carried out. The legislative intent behind sections 40A(5) and 40(c)(v) was highlighted by the Revenue, emphasizing curbing lavish expenditure on employees, especially higher-paid ones. The evolution of the provisions from Finance Act, 1964, to section 40A(5) was discussed, showing a clear intent to restrain lavish spending. A significant amount of case law was cited, including the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Yorkshire Insurance Co. Ltd., which interpreted the scope of section 40(a)(v) and depreciation allowances. The Kerala High Court's decisions in CIT v. Forbes, Ewart and Figgis (P) Ltd. and Harrisons and Crossfield (India) Limited were also referenced, emphasizing the ceiling limit aspect of sections 40(a)(v) and 40A(5). The assessee relied on the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT v. Davidson of India Private Ltd., where repair expenses were found not to be disallowable under section 40(c)(iii) as they were necessary for maintaining the flats. The Revenue sought to distinguish the Davidson of India case, arguing that subsequent amendments broadened the provisions under section 40A(5). However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the company's obligation to maintain its property, regardless of employee occupation, did not confer any benefit or perquisite to the employees. The judgment reiterated the rationale from Davidson of India case, concluding that no benefit accrued to employees from repair expenses, as maintaining the property was a company obligation. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that repair expenses for premises occupied by an employee should not be considered for disallowance under section 40A(5). The judgment was delivered by Judges Ajit K. Sengupta and Shyamal Kumar Sen, with Judge Sengupta providing the detailed analysis and Judge Sen concurring with the decision.
|
