9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claiming expenses as a proper charge on business income under section 10(2) of the Act or on general principles of commercial expediency. Analysis: The case involved an assessee, a private limited company engaged in transport business, claiming expenses totaling Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 3,050 for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56, respectively. These expenses included payments to auditors, advocates, and commissioners appointed by the court due to internal disputes among shareholders. The Income-tax Officer and subsequent authorities disallowed the claim, stating that the expenses did not represent expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business as they arose from internal management disputes, not incidental to the business. The Tribunal and High Court were approached, leading to the reference question. The key contention was whether the expenses incurred due to court orders and for carrying on the business were allowable. The assessee argued that by resisting the petition under section 153C of the Indian Companies Act, it was fighting for its existence, justifying the expenses as business-related. Reference was made to legal precedents like Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. Nageswara Rao and Morgan v. Tate and Lyle Ltd. to support the claim. However, the department argued that the application under section 153C did not seek winding up but resolution of internal disputes, making the expenses not wholly for business purposes. The court held that certain expenses related to the audit and general body meetings were allowable as normal business expenditure, falling within the scope of section 10(2)(xv) or general commercial requirements. However, expenses like remuneration to the interim administrator and advocate for resisting the application were deemed not allowable. Citing the decision in Selvarajulu Chetty & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the court found that legal expenses and charges for interim administration were not deductible. The question was answered partly in favor of the assessee, allowing some expenses while disallowing others based on the nature and purpose of the expenditure. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the criteria for determining allowable business expenses in the context of court-ordered activities and internal disputes, emphasizing the need for expenses to be directly related to business operations to qualify for deduction under tax laws.
|
