9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of the phrase "any benefit or amenity or perquisite" in section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the deduction of bonus and commission paid to employees by a private limited company.
Summary: The judgment of the High Court of Bombay was delivered by Justice Sawant regarding a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main issue was whether the bonus and commission paid by the assessee to its employees during the accounting year ending on March 31, 1964, could be disallowed as a revenue expense under section 40(c)(iii) of the Act. The assessee, a private limited company in the dyes and chemicals business, paid salaries, dearness allowance, bonus, and commission to its employees without a written agreement. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) proposed to disallow a portion of the payments under section 40(c)(iii), but the assessee contended that the provision did not apply to cash payments not covered by the expression "benefit or amenity or perquisite." The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (AAC) restricted the disallowance to specific benefits and deleted the balance. The Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, leading to the present reference before the High Court. The High Court analyzed the legislative history of section 40(c)(iii) and the relevant amendments. The Finance Act of 1964 amended the clause to exclude cash emoluments from the definition of "benefit or amenity or perquisite." The court noted that the Legislature's intention was clear in not including cash payments directly to employees under the said provision. Referring to previous court decisions, including the Supreme Court, the High Court affirmed that cash payments like bonus and commission were not covered by section 40(c)(iii) and could not be disallowed as revenue expenditure. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the amount paid by way of bonus and commission to employees was deductible and not covered by the provisions of section 40(c)(iii) of the Act. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the amount in question was deductible as it did not fall under the purview of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee was awarded costs from the revenue.
|
