9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee for installation charges for computer machinery is revenue expenditure and allowable deduction? 2. Whether the amount paid by the assessee to its employees is disallowable under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act? Analysis: 1. The assessee, a pharmaceutical manufacturing company, entered into an agreement for hiring computer machines, incurring an installation expenditure of Rs. 1,70,000. The Income-tax Officer treated this as capital expenditure, disallowing the deduction. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner disagreed, stating the expenditure was revenue in nature as the computers were not owned by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the hired computers did not provide an enduring benefit as they could be taken back by the supplier. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to the High Court affirming the Tribunal's decision. The High Court highlighted that the expenditure was incurred to obtain the advantage of using the computers, which were not owned by the assessee and were removed by the supplier within a few years. The court also noted that no evidence suggested the assessee intended to retain the computers permanently, supporting the view that the expenditure was revenue in nature. The judgment referenced a case where a similar conclusion was reached, further solidifying the decision in favor of the assessee. 2. Regarding the payments made to employees as bonuses, the Income-tax Officer disallowed a portion under section 40A(5), considering them as perquisites for certain employees. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal agreed that the payments were akin to salary and not perquisites, with only a specific amount being disallowed. The High Court concurred with this view, citing a previous decision that bonuses should be treated as salary. As both parties were satisfied with the decision on this issue, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling. The judgment emphasized the distinction between bonuses and perquisites, affirming the treatment of the payments as salary and not subject to further disallowance under section 40A(5). In conclusion, the High Court answered both issues in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The judgment provided detailed reasoning for each issue, emphasizing the nature of the expenditures and the legal interpretation of bonus payments as salary.
|
