9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 410 - HC - Income TaxExpenditure on repairs of rental premises and plumbing work - The Assessing Officer disallowed both the claims as he was of the opinion that these two items were capital expenditure of the assessee - Sections 30 to 36 of the Act provides for various deductions which is available while computing the income from business and profession. Section 37 is a general section which provides for deduction of expenditure not included in any of the sections 30 to 36 of the Act. - the provisions of section 37 of the Act cannot be given a restricted meaning. Mere fact that the claim does not fall in any of the sections 30 to 36 will not automatically make the claim unsustainable under section 37(1) of the Act as well. Section 37 being a general section, is for grant of deduction on certain accounts not enumerated in sections 30 to 36 of the Act
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the disallowance made in respect of tenanted premises under section 30(a)(i) can be allowed under section 37 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Applicability of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) instructions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals and references. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance under Section 30(a)(i) and Allowance under Section 37: The primary issue revolves around whether expenses disallowed under section 30(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act can be allowed under section 37. The assessee, a private limited company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of medicines, claimed deductions for repairs and plumbing work on rental premises. The Assessing Officer disallowed these claims, considering them capital expenditures. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction for repairs, albeit without commenting on the plumbing expenses, stating that even if disallowed under section 30(a)(i), the expenses could be allowed under section 37. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, leading to the question of law being referred to the High Court. The court noted that section 37(1) is a residuary provision allowing deductions for business expenses not covered by sections 30 to 36, provided they are not capital or personal expenses. The court concluded that section 37(1) does not preclude claims that could fall under sections 30 to 36 if they meet the conditions of section 37. The court cited precedents from the Kerala High Court, Gujarat High Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court, and Allahabad High Court, all supporting the view that expenses not deductible under sections 30 to 36 could still be allowable under section 37 if they meet the necessary conditions. The court, therefore, answered the question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. 2. Applicability of CBDT Instructions on Monetary Limits: The second issue concerns whether the CBDT's instructions on monetary limits for filing appeals and references should apply to pending cases. The assessee argued that the tax effect in the cases was within the monetary limits set by the CBDT, and thus, the references should be returned unanswered. The CBDT had issued instructions setting monetary limits for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court, which were revised over time. The court, however, rejected this argument, stating that the instructions are administrative and not binding on the Tribunal, High Court, or the assessee. The court emphasized that statutory provisions take precedence over administrative instructions. It cited judgments from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Supreme Court, all indicating that once an appeal or reference is filed, it must be decided on its merits regardless of the monetary limits set by the CBDT. The court thus decided to proceed with the references on their merits and not return them unanswered based on the CBDT instructions. Conclusion: The court ruled that expenses disallowed under section 30(a)(i) could be allowed under section 37 if they meet the necessary conditions, supporting the assessee's claim. Additionally, the court held that CBDT's administrative instructions on monetary limits do not bind the Tribunal or the High Court and cannot override statutory provisions. Consequently, the references were answered on their merits, favoring the assessee.
|
