9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the overall limit of Rs. 72,000 in respect of remuneration and other expenses of a director. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the disallowance of remuneration paid to a managing director by the assessee company for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed a portion of the remuneration exceeding Rs. 72,000, and this decision was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The main contention was whether the limit of Rs. 72,000 under section 40(c)(i) applied only if the ITO found the remuneration to be excessive or unreasonable. The Tribunal interpreted the provision to impose an overall limit irrespective of the reasonableness of the remuneration. The key provision in question was section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which restricts the deduction of excessive or unreasonable expenditure on remuneration to a director. The provision also sets a limit of Rs. 72,000 for such expenditure in a year. The court analyzed the language of the provision and the legislative intent behind it. It was noted that the provision was amended in 1971 to include the limit of Rs. 72,000, indicating a clear intention to cap such expenditures. The court considered the principle of strict construction of fiscal statutes and the need for harmonious interpretation of different provisions within the same statute. Reference was made to section 40A(5) which imposed a similar limit on certain expenditures related to employees, further supporting the interpretation that the limit under section 40(c)(i) was absolute. The court also referred to the legislative history and the Notes on Clauses in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1971, which emphasized the introduction of the overall ceiling limit of Rs. 72,000. Ultimately, the court agreed with the Tribunal's interpretation that the limit of Rs. 72,000 applied regardless of whether the remuneration was found to be excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, the court answered the reference question in the affirmative, in favor of the revenue. Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the matter. In a concurring opinion, Justice Sudhindra Mohan Guha agreed with the interpretation and conclusion reached by the court.
|
