9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure for guniting work and architects' fees was allowable as a deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the gratuity paid to the heirs of an employee was an allowable expenditure in the hands of the company. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Guniting Work and Architects' Fees as Deductible Expenditure Facts: The assessee, a company engaged in the business of publishing and selling books, incurred an expenditure of Rs. 59,000 for guniting work on its building and Rs. 3,680 as architects' fees. The company claimed these expenses as repairs under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner considered these as capital expenditures, arguing that the repairs prolonged the building's life by at least 15 years, thereby creating an enduring benefit. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the guniting process was an improved method of plastering and did not create a new asset or advantage. The expenses were thus considered as incurred for preserving and maintaining an existing asset. Court's Analysis: The court referred to the principles established in Gulamhussein Ebrahim Matcheswalla v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1974] 97 ITR 24 (Bom), which stated that repairs should be distinguished from renewal or restoration. The court emphasized that expenditure aimed at preserving an existing asset should be considered revenue expenditure, even if it extends the asset's life. The court found that the guniting process was merely an improved method of plastering to maintain the building and did not bring a new asset into existence. Judgment: The court held that the expenditure of Rs. 59,000 for guniting work and Rs. 3,680 for architects' fees were revenue expenditures and allowable as deductions under section 37 of the Act. The first question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. Issue 2: Gratuity Paid to Heirs of an Employee Facts: The assessee paid Rs. 50,000 as gratuity to the heirs of an employee who had served for 24 years and died suddenly. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, considering it an ex gratia payment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed a deduction of Rs. 24,000, equivalent to 12 months' salary, based on a settlement scheme for non-covenanted staff, and disallowed the rest as ex gratia payment. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision, recognizing an expectation among covenanted staff for gratuity payments similar to those for non-covenanted staff. Court's Analysis: The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Gordon Woodroffe Leather Manufacturing Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1962] 44 ITR 551 (SC), which laid down tests to determine if a payment is deductible: practice affecting salary, employee's expectation of gratuity, and commercial expediency. The court found that the expectation test was satisfied based on the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's finding, confirmed by the Tribunal, that covenanted staff expected gratuity similar to non-covenanted staff. Judgment: The court held that the payment of Rs. 24,000 as gratuity was an allowable business expenditure, while the excess amount of Rs. 26,000 was not. The second question was answered partially in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of Rs. 24,000. Conclusion: Both issues were resolved in favor of the assessee, with the court allowing the deductions for guniting work and architects' fees as revenue expenditures and a partial deduction for the gratuity paid to the heirs of the deceased employee. The assessee was awarded the costs of the reference from the revenue.
|
