9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether messing expenses can be considered entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) of the Act? 2. Whether the liability to pay sales tax for specific periods arose in the relevant assessment year? Analysis: Issue 1: The first issue revolves around whether messing expenses can be categorized as entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) of the Act. The assessee incurred messing charges amounting to Rs. 20,894, which were disallowed by the Income-tax Officer as entertainment expenses. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed Rs. 19,694 of the total amount, stating that they were not entertainment expenses. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the mess was operated for the benefit of staff members and clients, and the provision of food was not lavish or extravagant. Citing precedent cases, the Tribunal concluded that the expenses did not fall under entertainment expenses as defined by the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was justified, and the first question was answered affirmatively in favor of the assessee. Issue 2: The second issue pertains to the liability of the assessee to pay sales tax for specific periods in the relevant assessment year. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 5,63,287 as sales tax liability, contending that it arose in September 1972. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with this view, considering the mercantile system of accounting followed by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the liability to pay sales tax arose in the current assessment year when the exemption certificate was withdrawn, even though it covered sales from the previous year. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT to support their reasoning. Therefore, the entire sales tax liability was deemed to have arisen in the relevant accounting period, justifying the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the second question was also answered affirmatively in favor of the assessee. In conclusion, both issues were decided in favor of the assessee, and the reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
|
