9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deductibility of remuneration of Rs. 5,14,157 for the assessment year 1968-69. 2. Classification of directors as employees for the purpose of provident fund and superannuation fund deductions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Deductibility of Remuneration of Rs. 5,14,157 for the Assessment Year 1968-69 The primary question was whether the remuneration of Rs. 5,14,157 paid to the directors for the financial year ending March 31, 1967, was allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 1968-69. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially disallowed this deduction, arguing that the liability to pay the amount did not arise in the year 1967-68 and was not allowable under Section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1968-69. The Tribunal, however, concluded that Section 40(c) was not applicable and allowed the deduction for the year 1968-69. The High Court examined the timing of the resolutions passed by the assessee-company, which were on September 29, 1967, and January 22, 1968. It was noted that the directors chose to work without remuneration up to 1966-67, and the resolutions to pay remuneration were passed in the subsequent financial year. The court referenced the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Gajapathy Naidu, which held that income accrues when the right to receive it arises, not when the related services were rendered. The court concluded that the income accrued in the accounting year corresponding to the assessment year 1968-69 because the general body decided to remunerate the directors in that year. Thus, the remuneration was allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 1968-69. Issue 2: Classification of Directors as Employees for Provident Fund and Superannuation Fund Deductions The second question was whether the directors could be considered employees of the assessee-company, thereby making contributions to their provident fund and superannuation fund deductible. The ITO initially held that the directors were not employees, a decision upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC). However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Ram Prashad v. CIT, which recognized that a managing director could have a dual capacity as both a director and an employee. The High Court examined the nature of the directors' work and the terms of their remuneration, which included benefits typically associated with employment, such as provident fund contributions, motor car use, and residential accommodation. The court noted that the directors had been rendering extra services since 1943, and the resolutions passed by the company indicated an employer-employee relationship. The court also referenced the decision in CIT v. Travancore Chemical Mfg. Co., which emphasized the importance of supervisory control in determining an employer-employee relationship. The court concluded that the directors were indeed employees of the assessee-company, as evidenced by the terms of their remuneration and the control exercised by the company. Therefore, contributions to their provident fund and superannuation fund were allowable as deductions. Conclusion: - Question 1 in I.T.R. No. 170 of 1976: The remuneration of Rs. 5,14,157 was allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 1968-69. - Question 2 in I.T.R. No. 170 of 1976: The directors were employees of the assessee-company, and contributions to their provident fund and superannuation fund were deductible. - Question in I.T.R. No. 24 of 1977: The assessee-company was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 5,14,157 in the assessment year 1967-68. The matters were remitted back to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for disposal in accordance with the law. No orders as to costs were made in both references.
|
