9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of provisions for additional emoluments. 2. Determination of allowable salary and perquisites for director-employees under sections 40(c) and 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction of Provisions for Additional Emoluments: The assessee, a company, made provisions for additional emoluments to its staff amounting to Rs. 13,65,294 and Rs. 10,08,356 for the accounting years ending 31-10-1973 and 31-10-1974, respectively. These amounts were claimed as deductions in the assessments for 1974-75 and 1975-76. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) disallowed these deductions. However, the Tribunal, in its order dated 5-3-1977 for the assessment year 1974-75, held that the assessee had incurred a liability for additional wages and allowances as accepted before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the ITO to allow the deduction to the extent the estimate of additional liability was found reasonable. For the assessment year 1975-76, the AAC did not allow the corresponding claim as the Tribunal's order had not been passed at that time. The Tribunal, agreeing with its earlier order, directed the ITO to allow the deduction for Rs. 10,08,356, provided the estimate was reasonable based on relevant facts and circumstances. 2. Determination of Allowable Salary and Perquisites for Director-Employees: The second issue concerns the addition of salary and perquisites paid to directors who are also employees. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of sections 40(c) and 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that under section 40(c)(i) and (ii), only the excess over Rs. 72,000 from the total salary and perquisites is inadmissible as a deduction. Thus, the inadmissible amounts were Rs. 56,942 for K.G. Maheshwari and Rs. 28,763 for M.G. Maheshwari, totaling Rs. 85,705. The department contended that under section 40A(5)(c), the maximum allowable amounts were Rs. 60,000 for salary and Rs. 12,000 for perquisites separately. Therefore, the inadmissible amounts were Rs. 60,000 for K.G. Maheshwari and Rs. 30,000 for M.G. Maheshwari, totaling Rs. 90,000. The Tribunal noted that the provisions of section 40(c) restrict payments made by a company to its directors, while section 40A restricts payments to any employee. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a harmonious construction of these provisions. It held that remuneration paid to a director, whether as an employee or otherwise, falls under section 40(c) and not under section 40A(5). The Tribunal reasoned that the proviso to section 40(c) specifically recognizes the case of a director-employee and assimilates the provisions of section 40A(5). The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of section 40A(5) do not override section 40(c) in cases where directors are also employees. Therefore, the limit of Rs. 72,000 per annum applies, not the separate ceilings of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 12,000. The Tribunal rejected the department's contention that section 40A(1) overrides section 40(c). It held that the contrary provisions referred to in section 40A(1) are those like section 37, which would otherwise allow the whole expenditure. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's interpretation, leading to the deletion of the disputed addition of Rs. 4,295. Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the ITO to allow the deduction for additional emoluments for 1975-76 based on the reasonableness of the estimate. It also held that the addition for director-employee remuneration should be made under section 40(c) only, resulting in an allowable deduction of Rs. 85,705 and the deletion of the disputed addition of Rs. 4,295. The appeal was deemed allowed.
|
