9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the return signed by the liquidators. 2. Allowability of expenditure as a deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Computation of income u/s 41(2) read with section 41(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of the Return Signed by the Liquidators The primary issue was whether the return signed by the liquidators was non est in law, rendering the assessment void ab initio. The Tribunal held that the return filed by the liquidator was valid, referencing a similar case (Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.). The court noted that section 140(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not specifically address who should sign the return for a company in liquidation. However, section 140(f) allows a person competent to act on behalf of the company to sign the return. Additionally, section 457(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, empowers the liquidator to execute documents on behalf of the company. Therefore, the liquidator was deemed competent to sign and verify the return. The court also referenced section 178, which outlines the liquidator's obligations regarding tax liabilities, reinforcing the liquidator's authority to file returns. Issue 2: Allowability of Expenditure u/s 57(iii) The second issue concerned whether the expenditure of Rs. 92,565 was allowable as a deduction u/s 57(iii) while computing the total income. The Income-tax Officer allowed Rs. 36,987 as deductible expenses, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The court noted that the deductions claimed had to be allowed only to the extent they were wholly and exclusively incurred for earning the income. The Tribunal's decision was based on the factual determination of the expenses directly related to earning the interest income, and no further arguments on the quantum of allowance were presented. Issue 3: Computation of Income u/s 41(2) read with section 41(5) The third issue was whether full effect should have been given to section 41(2) read with section 41(5) in computing the income of Rs. 1,001. The Tribunal referred to an earlier order for an earlier assessment year, which was not included in the paper book. The court did not find any error in the Tribunal's reasoning and upheld its decision. Conclusion: All three questions were answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue. There was no order as to costs.
|
