9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in limiting the guarantee commission for the assessment year 1966-67? 2. Whether the Tribunal had sufficient materials to limit the guarantee commission to a specific period? Analysis: The case involved the deduction of guarantee commission by a private limited company paid to its managing director for the assessment year 1966-67. The company claimed a deduction of Rs. 13,750 as guarantee commission paid to the managing director. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim considering it unbelievable due to other benefits granted to the director. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the company, stating that the guarantee commission was a business expenditure and allowable under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal further held that the guarantee commission was not excessive under section 40(c) of the Act, considering it a payment for business consideration. Despite this, the Tribunal limited the commission to 1 1/2 months, allowing only Rs. 1,750 out of the total claim. The High Court noted that the entire sum of Rs. 13,750 was incurred as business expenditure and should be allowed as a deduction. The resolution passed by the company clearly stated the guarantee commission payable to the managing director as 2 1/2% on the overdraft limit, without specifying a time period. The Court held that since there was no stipulation in the resolution limiting the guarantee commission to 12 months, the Tribunal's decision to restrict it to Rs. 1,750 lacked any supporting material. Therefore, the Tribunal was unjustified in limiting the commission to a lesser amount. Additionally, the Court found that the Tribunal had no basis to restrict the guarantee commission to a period of 1 1/2 months. Consequently, both questions were answered in the negative, against the department, and the reference was answered accordingly, with no order as to costs.
|
