1991 (5) TMI 4 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of section 80B(5) and admissibility of relief u/s 80M on gross dividend without deducting management expenses and interest.
2. Entitlement to change the method of valuation of closing stock and deduction claim.
3. Inclusion of cash payments for medical expenses in the value of benefit, amenity, or perquisite for disallowance limits u/s 40(c)(iii) or 40(a)(v).

Summary:

Issue 1: Relief u/s 80M on Gross Dividend
The assessee received a gross dividend of Rs. 3,02,662. The Income-tax Officer deducted proportionate expenses and interest, leaving a net dividend of Rs. 56,200 for relief u/s 80M. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing relief on the gross dividend. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing several Supreme Court and High Court rulings. The Revenue argued that section 80AA, effective from April 1, 1968, mandates relief computation based on the amount included in the assessment. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, but the court found that section 80AA did not alter the provisions of section 80M in this context. The court referenced Gujarat High Court decisions in Addl. CIT v. Laxmi Agents P. Ltd. and CIT v. Cotton Fabrics Ltd., which supported the assessee's position that interest paid for business purposes should not reduce dividend income for relief computation. The court concluded that the entire dividend amount should be considered for relief u/s 80M, answering the first question in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Change in Method of Valuation of Closing Stock
The second question, previously decided in favor of the assessee in CIT v. National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. [1984] 145 ITR 457 (Cal), was referred again due to a typographical error. The court reaffirmed its earlier decision, allowing the assessee to change the method of valuation of its closing stock and claim a deduction of Rs. 23,06,452.

Issue 3: Reimbursement of Medical Expenses
The third question, also previously decided in favor of the assessee, involved whether cash payments for medical expenses should be included in the value of benefits for disallowance limits u/s 40(c)(iii) or 40(a)(v). The court reaffirmed its earlier decision, holding that such reimbursements could not be included in the value of benefits for the purpose of disallowance limits.

Conclusion
The court answered all three questions in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.