9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of additional amount paid due to exchange rate fluctuation. 2. Deduction of expenditure for providing coffee to customers. 3. Deduction of compensation paid to E.P.S. cardholders. 4. Entitlement to extra shift allowance for machinery and spares. Summary: 1. Deduction of Additional Amount Paid Due to Exchange Rate Fluctuation: The assessee, a public limited company, claimed a deduction of Rs. 36,983 for the additional amount paid due to the fall in the value of the rupee. The Tribunal allowed Rs. 31,132 as interest on a loan but disallowed Rs. 5,923 as capital expenditure. The court found that the Tribunal did not properly scrutinize the figures and did not consider the applicability of s. 43A. The matter was returned to the Tribunal for reconsideration without rendering an answer. 2. Deduction of Expenditure for Providing Coffee to Customers: The assessee claimed Rs. 13,000 for providing coffee to customers. The Tribunal allowed the claim, stating it was not entertainment expenditure but common courtesy. The court upheld this view, referencing CIT v. Karuppuswamy Nadar & Sons [1979] 120 ITR 140, and concluded that the expenditure was not in the nature of entertainment. The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. 3. Deduction of Compensation Paid to E.P.S. Cardholders: The assessee paid Rs. 11,875 as compensation to weavers for not supplying rayon yarn at concessional rates. The ITO disallowed the amount, considering it illegal. The Tribunal allowed the deduction, and the court upheld this, stating the payment was made to avoid losses and was not a penalty for a statutory breach. The court referenced CIT v. Vasantha Mills Ltd. [1979] 120 ITR 321 (Mad) and CIT v. Surya Prabha Mills (P.) Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 654 (Mad), concluding that the payment was wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. 4. Entitlement to Extra Shift Allowance for Machinery and Spares: The assessee claimed extra shift allowance based on the entire concern's working days. The ITO restricted it to individual machinery. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim, but the court disagreed, stating that extra shift allowance should be calculated based on individual machinery's working days, not the entire concern. The court referenced Anantapur Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 851 and other similar cases, concluding that the claim must be based on actual usage of machinery. The question was answered in the negative and in favor of the revenue. The court declined the assessee's oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the extra shift allowance, citing consistent judicial interpretation and clear rule language.
|
