9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of reassessment and disallowance under section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Applicability of section 40A(2) versus section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to payments made to non-relatives of directors. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Justification of Reassessment and Disallowance under Section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The Tribunal had to determine whether the reassessment and the disallowance of guarantee commission under section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were justified. The assessee, M/s. Ayurvedic Sevashram (P) Ltd., had entered into agreements with certain individuals for arranging finances, and these individuals were paid a guarantee commission. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a portion of this commission for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, citing that the amounts were excessive and unreasonable under section 40A. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed these disallowances. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that section 40(c) was applicable and no part of the guarantee commission was disallowable. The Tribunal's decision was based on the premise that the payments were made to relatives of the directors as per section 2(41) of the Act, and section 40(c) specifically deals with such expenditures. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 40A(2) versus Section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The Tribunal had to decide whether the provisions of section 40A(2) or section 40(c)(i) applied to the payments made to non-relatives of the directors. Section 40A(2) deals with expenditures considered excessive or unreasonable, while section 40(c)(i) pertains to expenditures resulting in remuneration or benefits to directors or their relatives. The Tribunal concluded that section 40(c)(i) was applicable to the guarantee commission paid, as it was in lieu of services rendered by the directors in securing finances for the company. Consequently, no part of the guarantee commission could be disallowed under section 40A. The Tribunal's interpretation was that if an expenditure falls under section 40(c)(i), it cannot be brought under section 40A(2). This interpretation was supported by the proviso to section 40A(2), which states that its provisions shall not apply to expenditures to which section 40(c)(i) applies. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, which agreed that the reassessment and disallowance based on section 40A were not justified. The High Court emphasized that section 40(c)(i) governed the payments made to relatives of the directors, and thus, section 40A could not be invoked for reassessment. Consequently, the High Court answered the first question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and found it unnecessary to address the second question. The parties were left to bear their own costs, and the Tribunal was informed of this order in accordance with section 260(1) of the Act.
|
