9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether gratuity payments made by the applicant-company are allowable deductions under section 5(j) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950? Analysis: The judgment by the Kerala High Court pertains to a reference made by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the allowability of gratuity payments made by the Teekoy Rubbers (India) Limited. The specific question referred was related to two gratuity payments: one of &8377; 15,000 to the widow of a deceased superintendent and another of &8377; 500 to a terminated superintendent. The applicant argued that these payments fall under section 5(j) of the Act, which allows deductions for expenditures made wholly and exclusively for deriving agricultural income. The court referred to legal precedents such as Atherton v. British Insulated & Helsby Cables Ltd. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chandulal Keshavlal & Company to establish the principle that an expenditure made for commercial expediency and to facilitate business operations can qualify as a deduction. The Supreme Court's decision in Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax laid down the test that whether a payment was made as a matter of practice affecting salary or for commercial expediency determines its deductibility. In this case, the court found that the gratuity payments were not made as a matter of practice or to affect salary levels. The payments were deemed ex gratia, voluntary gestures without a clear nexus to the future conduct of the business. The absence of a connection between the purpose of the payments and the company's future operations led the court to conclude that the payments did not qualify as allowable deductions under section 5(j) of the Act. The court emphasized that not every ex gratia payment to an employee can be justified on grounds of commercial expediency. To qualify as a business expenditure, there must be a clear nexus between the payment and the future conduct of the business. Since such a nexus was absent in this case, the court ruled against the applicant, denying the deductions for both gratuity payments. The judgment was delivered without any order as to costs, upholding the decision in favor of the department.
|
