1985 (4) TMI 4 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Entertainment expenditure disallowance
2. Capital gains computation on sale of shares
3. Relief under section 80J for capital employed
4. Relief under section 80J for units without proportionate basis

Entertainment Expenditure Disallowance:
The court referred to a previous decision against the Revenue in CIT v. Karuppuswamy Nadar & Sons [1979] 120 ITR 140, stating that the expenditure on providing coffee, cool drinks, and meals to customers cannot be considered entertainment expenditure. The court upheld this decision, answering the question in the affirmative against the Revenue.

Capital Gains Computation on Sale of Shares:
The court noted that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found no evidence that the sale price received for shares exceeded the amount disclosed in the sale deed. Citing the Supreme Court decision in K. P. Varghese v. ITC [1981] 131 ITR 597, the court concluded that section 52(2) could not be applied. The question was answered in the affirmative against the Revenue.

Relief under Section 80J for Capital Employed:
The court referenced several decisions from different High Courts, establishing that capital invested in machinery, even if not used in the relevant accounting year, should be considered part of the capital for relief under section 80J. Following this precedent, the court answered the question affirmatively against the Revenue.

Relief under Section 80J for Units without Proportionate Basis:
The court relied on a previous decision in CIT v. Simpson and Company [1980] 122 ITR 283, which favored the assessee. It was determined that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 80J for units at 6% on the capital employed without being limited to a proportionate basis to the actual period of working. The question was answered in the affirmative against the Revenue.

Additional Reference Application:
In a separate reference application, the Revenue sought a question regarding the determination of fair market value of shares sold by the assessee. However, the court dismissed the application as section 52(2) was deemed inapplicable due to lack of evidence that the sale price exceeded the disclosed amount. The question was considered academic and did not arise from the Tribunal's order, leading to the dismissal of the reference application.