2011 (12) TMI 298 - HC - Income Tax

Reimbursement of employees expenses on public taxis in connection with the business of the company is of the nature of payment of conveyance allowance thereby attracting the dis-allowance under Section 37(A) - Held That - It is clear that the expenditure referred to in Section 37(3B)(ii) pertains to running and maintenance of aircraft and motor cars. In our view taxis used by employees of the assessee company for the business of the assessee company cannot be construed as hiring of cars as contemplated under the said provisions. Reliance placed on CIT v. General Electric Co. of India Ltd ( 2001 (12) TMI 35 - CALCUTTA High Court) & CIT v. Indian Hume Pipe Co Ltd. (2000 (3) TMI 15 - BOMBAY High Court) Depreciation allowance when property not registered in name of assessee - Held That - In view of Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT (1999 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court) depreciation allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the appellant company in reimbursing its employees for expenses on public taxis is of the nature of payment of conveyance allowance, attracting disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether the assessee company is entitled to depreciation allowance in respect of specific floors of a building?

Issue 1:
The case involved a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the appellant company's expenditure on reimbursing employees for public taxi expenses. The dispute centered around whether this expense qualified as conveyance allowance, subject to disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Act. The courts had disallowed the expenditure, citing Section 37(3B)(ii) and the Explanation, which encompassed running and maintenance of motor cars. However, the High Court analyzed the provisions and held that public taxi expenses did not fall under this category. Citing precedents from Bombay and Calcutta High Courts, the court concluded that the expenditure on public taxis did not align with the provisions of section 37(3B) and, therefore, disallowance under section 37(3A was unwarranted.

Issue 2:
Regarding the entitlement to depreciation allowance for specific floors of a building, the court relied on a Supreme Court decision in the assessee's prior case for the Assessment Year 1982-83. The Supreme Court had ruled that depreciation allowance could be granted for floors of a building not registered in the assessee's name. Following this precedent and another Supreme Court decision, the High Court determined that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance for the relevant floors. The court's decision favored the assessee, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation of depreciation allowance eligibility for properties not registered in the assessee's name.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues, determining that the expenditure on public taxis did not qualify for disallowance under section 37(3A and that the assessee was entitled to depreciation allowance for the specified floors of the building.