9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the following Issues: 1. Deletion of addition from the computation of total income. 2. Obligation to make an order for recovering tax due on payments to non-residents. 3. Exclusion of surtax in computing income of the assessee-company. 4. Entitlement to development rebate on a wall clock in the factory premises. Deletion of Addition from Total Income: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred questions regarding the deletion of an amount from the assessee's total income. The Tribunal held that the expenditure of Rs. 46,107 should be deleted from the computation of total income. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim as tax was not deducted at source under section 195. However, the Tribunal found that non-compliance with section 195 does not make the deduction impermissible. It was deemed that the proper course was for the Income-tax Officer to make an order under section 201 for recovering the tax due on the payment to the non-resident. Obligation for Tax Recovery on Non-Resident Payments: The Tribunal upheld the contention of the assessee regarding the deduction of Rs. 46,107, emphasizing the need for an order under section 201 for recovering the tax due on the payment made to the non-resident. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that non-compliance with section 195 does not automatically render an expenditure impermissible. Exclusion of Surtax in Income Computation: The Tribunal's decision regarding the exclusion of surtax in computing the income of the assessee-company was challenged by the Revenue. Citing a previous court decision, it was held that the surtax payable by the assessee should not be excluded while computing income. Consequently, this question was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Entitlement to Development Rebate on Wall Clock: The assessee claimed development rebate for a wall clock in the factory premises. The Tribunal denied the claim, stating that a wall clock is not considered a plant. However, the assessee argued that the wall clock should be considered a plant as it was used in the factory. Referring to legal precedents, it was established that the term "plant" is construed widely and includes items essential for business operations. The court concluded that the wall clock played an essential role in the assessee's operations and should be regarded as a tool of the manufacturing trade, thus entitling the assessee to development rebate. In conclusion, the judgment addressed various tax-related issues including deduction of expenses, tax recovery obligations, surtax computation, and entitlement to development rebate, providing detailed reasoning for each decision.
|
