9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 9,000 out of the remuneration paid to the managing director under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Entitlement to relief under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 9,000 under Section 40(c) The first issue concerns whether Rs. 9,000 out of the Rs. 18,000 remuneration paid to the managing director, S. A. Patel, could be disallowed under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a limited company manufacturing "view-masters," paid Patel a total remuneration of Rs. 18,000. The ITO disallowed Rs. 9,000, citing that the remuneration paid was excessive or unreasonable in view of the legitimate needs of the company and the services rendered by Patel. The AAC upheld this disallowance, emphasizing that Patel's responsibilities towards another concern, M/s. Patel India (Private) Ltd., had not reduced. The Tribunal, however, reversed this decision, considering Patel's qualifications and the new activities undertaken by the company under his supervision. The Tribunal concluded that the remuneration was commercially justified. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that unless the Tribunal's conclusion was totally unwarranted or based on irrelevant material, it should be left undisturbed. Thus, Question No. 1 was answered in favor of the assessee. Issue 2: Entitlement to Relief under Section 84 The second issue involved the assessee's entitlement to relief under section 84, which provides for income-tax exemption to the extent of 60% of the capital employed in a new industrial undertaking, provided certain conditions are met. Two conditions were material: 1. The undertaking should not have been formed by the transfer of previously used building, machinery, or plant (section 84(2)(ii)). 2. The undertaking should employ ten or more workers if the manufacturing process is carried out with the aid of power (section 84(2)(iv)). The ITO disallowed the relief, stating that the machinery used was partially owned by M/s. Patel India (Private) Ltd., and the assessee did not employ ten or more workers. The AAC upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal found that the machinery taken on hire from M/s. Patel India (Private) Ltd. formed a very small fraction of the machinery used and thus did not contribute significantly to the formation of the new undertaking. The Tribunal also accepted that employing ten or more workers for some days in the assessment year was sufficient to meet the requirement under section 84(2)(iv). The High Court agreed with the Tribunal regarding section 84(2)(ii), citing precedents from CIT v. Asbestos, Magnesia & Friction Materials Ltd. and CIT v. Kopran Chemical Co. Ltd. However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation of section 84(2)(iv). It held that the requirement is not satisfied merely by employing ten or more workers for a few days; rather, the employment must be substantial throughout the period for which relief is claimed. The High Court clarified that averaging the number of workers is not permissible and that the condition must be substantially met during the relevant period. Conclusion: 1. Question No. 1: Answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee, affirming that the disallowance of Rs. 9,000 was not justified. 2. Question No. 2: The Tribunal's view on section 84(2)(ii) was upheld, but its interpretation of section 84(2)(iv) was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the compliance with section 84(2)(iv) based on the proper tests outlined by the High Court. The parties were directed to bear their own costs of the reference.
|
