1989 (3) TMI 92 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of sections 40A(5)(c) and 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the disallowance of expenditure incurred by a company for the benefit of an employee who is also a director of the company.

Analysis:
The case involved a director of a company who was also its employee, with perks valued at Rs. 9,600 and a salary of Rs. 18,000 during the relevant accounting year. The Income-tax Officer applied section 40A(5)(c) of the Income-tax Act, restricting the allowance on perquisites to 20% of the salary, disallowing Rs. 6,000. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed and allowed the full deduction of Rs. 9,600. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, concurred with the Commissioner of Income-tax.

Upon reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the High Court considered conflicting decisions from different High Courts. The Revenue relied on the Kerala High Court's decision in Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. CIT, asserting that section 40A(5) applies when a director is also an employee, while the Tribunal referenced the Gujarat High Court's decision in Addl. CIT v. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. and CIT v. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd.

The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 40(c) and section 40A(5)(c) of the Act. It concluded that when a director is also an employee of the company, section 40A(5) applies, which in turn refers to section 40(c) regarding expenditure and allowances. The Court aligned with the Kerala High Court's interpretation, holding that section 40A(5) is applicable in cases where a director is also an employee, contrary to the Gujarat High Court's view. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was deemed incorrect, and the correct provision for disallowing expenditure in such cases is section 40A(5) of the Act.

In summary, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that section 40A(5) and clause (c) thereof are applicable for disallowing expenditure incurred by a company for the benefit of an employee who is also a director. As no representation was made on behalf of the assessee, no costs were awarded.