9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Correctness of upholding the deletion of Rs. 88,911 under section 40A(5) by the Tribunal. 2. Calculation of perquisites under section 40A(5) by applying rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules. Analysis: The case involves a reference by the Revenue under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the correctness of an assessment of a limited company for the year 1980-81. The main issue revolves around the determination of permissible deduction towards perquisites provided to employees. The assessing authority added Rs. 88,911 under section 40A(5) of the Act, which was later deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) based on a decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the deletion, leading to the reference to the High Court. To understand the points at hand, sections 40A(1) and (5) need to be considered together. Section 40A(1) specifies that its provisions will prevail over other provisions of the Act. The debate in this case focuses on whether the computation of perquisites under section 40A(5) should be based on rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules. The Revenue argues for a strict interpretation of the provision, supported by a decision of the Kerala High Court, emphasizing the non-obstante clause in section 40A(1. On the other hand, the assessee's representative relies on the similarity between "perquisites" in section 40A(5) and section 17(2), arguing that only the amount deducted from the employee's taxation should be added to the employer's income. This interpretation is supported by decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, emphasizing consistency in assessment standards for employees and employers. The High Court, after considering the arguments and precedent decisions, rules in favor of the Revenue. It highlights that equitable considerations should not override the clear language of the statute, especially in tax matters. The application of section 17 to perquisites of motor vehicles is deemed inapplicable to section 40A(5), and rule 3 is not relevant for computing income under business or profession. In conclusion, both questions raised in the reference are answered in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the strict application of tax provisions over equitable considerations. The judgment is delivered by S. C. Mohapatra, with agreement from S. K. Mohanty.
|
