9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment of Rs. 12,500 to the daughter of a deceased employee qualifies as an admissible business expenditure u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: Issue 1: Admissibility of Payment as Business Expenditure u/s 37 The assessee, a private limited company, paid Rs. 12,500 to the daughter of a deceased employee, M. C. Maloo, who died while undergoing training in the U.S.A. The payment was made in recognition of his past services. The assessee claimed this amount as a deduction u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, asserting it was expended wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim, citing the absence of a gratuity or pension scheme, no obligation to make such a payment, and no evidence of similar past payments. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this decision. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the deduction, reasoning that the expenditure was made to maintain good relations between the employer and employees and to engender confidence in the management. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the payment was ex gratia, motivated by sympathy and generosity rather than business purposes. They emphasized the lack of a scheme, established practice, or contractual obligation, and the fact that the deceased was related to one of the directors. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Gordon Woodroffe Leather Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which laid down guidelines for such cases. The proper test is whether the payment was made as a matter of practice affecting the quantum of salary, whether there was an expectation of such payment, or whether it was made on the ground of commercial expediency to facilitate business. Applying these principles, the court noted that the absence of a scheme or past practice is relevant but not decisive. Payments made voluntarily on the grounds of commercial expediency to avoid industrial disputes and to buy industrial peace can be deductible. The court also dismissed the relevance of the deceased's distant relationship with a director. The Tribunal's finding that the payment was made to maintain good relations and engender confidence was upheld. The court emphasized that the reasonableness of the expenditure should be judged from the businessman's perspective, not the revenue's. The lack of evidence on the computation basis of the compensation was not deemed significant. The court also reviewed several cases cited by the revenue, noting that each decision was context-specific. The court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction, as the payment was made on the ground of commercial expediency. Conclusion: The court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the Rs. 12,500 as an admissible business expenditure u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision was in favor of the assessee and against the revenue.
|
