9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Deduction of provision for unavailed leave salary of employees. 2. Admissibility of arrears of urban land tax as expenditure. 3. Allowance of notice pay to voluntarily retired workers as deduction. Issue 1 - Deduction of provision for unavailed leave salary: The Revenue did not press for an answer on this question. Therefore, the court refrained from answering the common question. Issue 2 - Admissibility of arrears of urban land tax: The court referred to previous decisions and held that the sum of arrears of urban land tax is an admissible expenditure for the assessment year 1973-74, even though the tax related to earlier years. Issue 3 - Allowance of notice pay to voluntarily retired workers: The assessee, a limited company, paid notice pay to nine workers who voluntarily retired. The Income-tax Officer initially treated this payment as inadmissible expenditure, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed it, stating it was made to maintain good relationship with employees. The Tribunal found that the payment was part of business expediency due to sustaining losses and reorganizing the branch by reducing staff. The court held that the expenditure was allowable as it was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes, considering it necessary for maintaining good relationship with labor and for business expediency. The court cited a Supreme Court case to support the decision and answered the third question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There was no order as to costs in this judgment.
|
