9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves three main issues: 1. Allowance of expenses for food, tiffin, salary paid to guest house staff, and depreciation on assets used in guest houses. 2. Treatment of contribution to Molasses Storage and Maintenance Reserve as revenue expenditure. 3. Entitlement to deduction under section 80G for donation to Vishwa Mangal Trust. Issue 1: The assessee claimed deduction for expenses related to food, tea, tiffin, etc., provided to visitors and customers in its guest houses. The Income-tax Officer disallowed these expenses, along with depreciation claimed on fixed assets used in the guest house. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowances, but the Revenue contended that sub-section (4) of section 37 prohibited such allowances. The High Court agreed with the Revenue, stating that no allowance was intended for expenses incurred after February 28, 1970, on maintaining guest houses. The Tribunal's decision to allow the expenses was deemed incorrect as the expenses were for guest house maintenance, and the disallowances were upheld. Issue 2: The Income-tax Officer disallowed the assessee's deduction claim for contribution to the Molasses Storage Fund. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld the deletion of this addition, following a previous decision. The High Court, in line with the precedent, affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the deletion of the addition was correct. Issue 3: Regarding the donation of Rs. 2,57,000 to Vishwa Mangal Trust, the Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the deduction under section 80G. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the relief, which was further upheld by the Tribunal. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal, citing a previous case where it was found that the trust's purpose included religious activities, which did not qualify for deduction under section 80G. Consequently, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, disallowing the deduction for the donation. The judgment concludes with the High Court answering each question as follows: 1. Question No. 1: Answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue. 2. Question No. 2: Answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. 3. Question No. 3: Answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue.
|
