9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the claimed sales promotion expenses were admissible in the computation of the assessee's total income for the assessment year 1973-74. Analysis: The case involved an application under s. 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law. The assessee, a firm, disclosed expenses for sales promotion, specifically for distributing silver glasses to customers, which the Income-tax Officer initially disallowed. However, the AAC and the Tribunal allowed the expenses as they were considered to be incurred wholly and exclusively for the business. The Tribunal dismissed the reference application under s. 256(1) on the grounds of being a finding of fact. The issue revolved around whether the expenditure on sales promotion was justifiable under s. 37 of the Act and Rule 6B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenses, citing that the value of each glass distributed exceeded Rs. 50, which was not permissible under Rule 6B. On appeal, the AAC reversed this decision, stating that the glasses were of a value less than Rs. 50 each and were necessary for the business purpose. The Tribunal concurred with the AAC's findings, emphasizing that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the business. The Tribunal highlighted that the expenditure did not breach Rule 6B as the cost of each glass was below Rs. 50. The judgment emphasized that once an expense is deemed to be wholly and exclusively for business purposes and within the prescribed limitations, it should be allowed as an admissible expenditure. The Court, after considering the arguments, concluded that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. It was determined that the Tribunal's decision to reject the reference application under s. 256(1) was correct as the findings were based on evidence and not challenged adequately. The judgment reiterated that if an expense is incurred wholly and exclusively for business within the prescribed limits, it should be considered an allowable expenditure. Therefore, the application under s. 256(2) was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
|
