1991 (7) TMI 63 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 17,687 can be treated as entertainment expenditure disallowable u/s 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 17,687 is liable to be disallowed as guest house expenditure u/s 37(3) or 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 500 as depreciation on guest house u/s 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was justified.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entertainment Expenditure u/s 37(2B)
The assessee incurred Rs. 17,687 for providing messing facilities to its employees at Bilimora. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this expenditure as entertainment expenditure u/s 37(2B). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal held that the expenditure was not lavish or extravagant and thus not in the nature of entertainment expenditure. The High Court agreed, stating that the expenditure could not be disallowed as entertainment expenditure u/s 37(2B).

Issue 2: Guest House Expenditure u/s 37(3) and 37(4)
The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 17,687 under sections 37(3) and 37(4), claiming it was for the maintenance of residential accommodation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal allowed the expenditure, stating it was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The High Court held that the expenditure was not for the maintenance of residential accommodation but for messing facilities, and thus, sections 37(3) and 37(4) did not apply. Therefore, the expenditure was not disallowable under these sections.

Issue 3: Depreciation on Guest House u/s 37(4)
The Income-tax Officer disallowed Rs. 500 as depreciation on the guest house u/s 37(4). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal allowed the depreciation. The High Court disagreed, stating that the accommodation maintained by the assessee was residential accommodation in the nature of a guest house. Therefore, depreciation on that part of the building used as a guest house was not allowable u/s 37(4)(ii). The High Court held that the Tribunal was wrong in setting aside the disallowance of depreciation.

Conclusion:
The High Court answered:
1. Question 1 in the affirmative, against the Revenue.
2. Question 2 in the affirmative, against the Revenue.
3. Question 3 in the negative, against the assessee.

Reference was answered accordingly with no order as to costs.