9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of legal expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with the income-tax appeals of its parent company. 2. Disallowance of part of the remuneration paid to the London agents. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Legal Expenses: The first issue pertains to whether the legal expenses of Rs. 8,482 incurred by the assessee-company in connection with the income-tax appeals of its parent company, Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd., were admissible deductions while calculating the business income. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this deduction, reasoning that the expense was not incurred for the purpose of the assessee's business but rather for its parent company. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was not for reducing the income-tax liability or saving the assets of the assessee but was related to the parent company's income-tax liability. The High Court affirmed this view, noting that no authority was cited to support the claim that such expenses should be deductible for the agent's income-tax assessment. Consequently, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue. 2. Disallowance of Part of the Remuneration: The second issue revolves around the disallowance of lb4,000 out of the lb12,000 paid to the London agents, Geoffrey Turner & Co. Ltd. The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed this amount, citing extra-commercial considerations, and this disallowance was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Accountant Member of the Tribunal. The Accountant Member reasoned that in the previous assessment year, lb4,000 had been used to import motor vehicles, indicating extra-commercial considerations. The Judicial Member of the Tribunal, however, disagreed, noting that the facts of the current year differed from the previous year and that the principles of res judicata did not apply to income-tax proceedings. He emphasized that there was no evidence of any clandestine transaction or receipt of goods in the current year and that the Reserve Bank had sanctioned the payment of lb12,000, indicating commercial considerations. The matter was referred to a third member, who sided with the Accountant Member, stating that the Reserve Bank's sanction was not a distinguishing feature and that the agreement contemplated a remuneration of lb8,000, with the balance lb4,000 representing non-commercial considerations. The third member rejected the assessee's new contention that part of the lb12,000 related to business outside India. Upon review, the High Court found that the facts of the current year were different from the previous year, where part of the remuneration had been returned as motor vehicles. In the current year, the entire lb12,000 was paid to the London agent, and the agreement's validity was supported by the Reserve Bank's permission. The court noted that the Revenue had not provided evidence to suggest extra-commercial considerations in the current year. Therefore, the court concluded that the disallowance of lb4,000 was unjustified and answered this question in the negative and in favor of the assessee. Conclusion: The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue regarding the deduction of legal expenses, affirming that such expenses were not admissible. However, the court ruled in favor of the assessee concerning the disallowance of part of the remuneration paid to the London agents, noting the lack of evidence for extra-commercial considerations in the current assessment year.
|
