1979 (3) TMI 55 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the tax imposed under the Uttar Pradesh (Nagar Kshettra) Bhumi Aur Bhawan Kar Adhiniyam, 1962.
2. Deductibility of Bhumi Bhawan Kar amounting to Rs. 13,338 under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Application of s. 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Precedents set by the Supreme Court in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 735.
5. Relevance of the decision in CIT v. Jai Hind Picture Co. (P.) Ltd. [1973] 87 ITR 218 (Punj) to the case.
6. Connection between the tax payment and the business activities of the assessee.

Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh pertains to the interpretation and deductibility of the tax imposed under the Uttar Pradesh (Nagar Kshettra) Bhumi Aur Bhawan Kar Adhiniyam, 1962. The court was tasked with determining whether the disallowance of Bhumi Bhawan Kar amounting to Rs. 13,338, paid by a public limited company for land and buildings used in its business operations, was legally justified. The court analyzed the provisions of the U.P. Act, emphasizing that the tax could be levied from either the owner or the occupier of the land or premises in question.

Regarding the deductibility of the tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the court examined the applicability of s. 30(b) and s. 37(1) of the Act. The Tribunal had previously denied the deduction, citing that the tax was not imposed by a local authority. However, the court referred to the decision in Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 735, which established the requirement of a direct and intimate connection between the expenditure and the business activities of the assessee for deductibility.

The court further discussed the decision in CIT v. Jai Hind Picture Co. (P.) Ltd. [1973] 87 ITR 218 (Punj) and its relevance to the case at hand. It highlighted the Supreme Court's position that if the expenditure was incurred by the assessee as an owner-cum-trader and was incidental to the business, it should be treated as laid out for the purpose of the trade. This principle was reiterated in subsequent Supreme Court cases, namely Dehra Dun Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 197 (SC) and Mitsui Steamship Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 7 (SC).

Ultimately, the court concluded that since the land and premises subject to the tax under the U.P. Act were essential for the assessee's business operations and the tax payment was incidental to the business, the deduction should be allowed. Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the tax payment was legitimately connected to the business activities, thus making it deductible. The reference was disposed of in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.