1978 (7) TMI 58 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether "overseas allowance" and "managing allowance" fall within the expressions "benefit", "amenity", or "perquisite" u/s 40(c)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1966-67.
2. Whether "overseas allowance", "managing allowance", "devaluation allowance", and "transport allowance" fall within the expressions "benefit", "amenity", or "perquisite" u/s 40(c)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1967-68.

Summary:

Issue 1: Overseas and Managing Allowance (Assessment Year 1966-67)
The assessee, M/s. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd., claimed deductions for "overseas allowance" and "managing allowance" paid to employees, arguing these did not constitute "benefit", "amenity", or "perquisite" u/s 40(c)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO disallowed 40% of these amounts. The AAC and the Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention, leading to the revenue's appeal. The High Court held that cash payments directly to employees do not fall within the expressions "benefit", "amenity", or "perquisite" as there is no question of convertibility to money. The deletion of "remuneration" from the section by the Finance Act, 1964, reinforced this interpretation. The court answered the question in the affirmative, favoring the assessee.

Issue 2: Overseas, Managing, Devaluation, and Transport Allowance (Assessment Year 1967-68)
For the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee claimed deductions for "overseas allowance", "managing allowance", "devaluation allowance", and "transport allowance". The ITO disallowed these claims, but the AAC and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. The High Court reiterated its stance that direct cash payments do not fall within the expressions "benefit", "amenity", or "perquisite". Additionally, the court noted that the deduction claimed for "transport allowance" is covered by s. 40(c)(iii) itself. The court answered the question in the affirmative, favoring the assessee.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that direct cash payments to employees do not constitute "benefit", "amenity", or "perquisite" u/s 40(c)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Both questions for the respective assessment years were answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee. There was no order as to costs.