9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of business expenditure claimed by the assessee in relation to payments made to an employee, Baldev Raj, and the managed company. Interpretation of sections 314 and 360 of the Companies Act, 1956 in the context of the appointment of Baldev Raj. Determination of the legality of payments made by the assessee and the entitlement to deductions under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The High Court of Calcutta addressed a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1964-65. The case involved the appointment of Baldev Raj by the managed company and subsequent employment by the assessee-company. The managed company failed to secure Central Government sanction for Baldev Raj's employment after February 22, 1963, leading to a resolution to withdraw his appointment. The assessee-company then appointed Baldev Raj in a meeting and paid the managed company the sum due from him. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee, alleging illegal expenditure under the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the first appeal, citing the need for government approval for Baldev Raj's employment. However, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the second appeal, stating the assessee was not party to any illegality. The Tribunal held the payments were for business purposes and allowable as deductions. The Court framed a question on the correctness of this decision. The revenue contended that the payments contravened the Companies Act, citing relevant case law. The assessee argued that the appointment of Baldev Raj by the assessee was valid and not in contravention of the Companies Act. The Court analyzed the legal provisions and previous judgments to determine the legality of the payments. It was established that the payments were for business purposes and did not violate the Companies Act. The Court highlighted the wider scope of "for the purpose of the business" in the context of allowable deductions. The Tribunal's findings, supported by legal principles and precedent, favored the assessee. The Court rejected the revenue's contentions and ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the deductibility of the payments as business expenditure. The judgment was delivered by Judges S. K. Hazra and S. C. Deb of the High Court of Calcutta.
|
