1975 (1) TMI 29 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 17(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Valuation of the benefit derived by the assessee.

Summary:

1. Applicability of section 17(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal held that section 17(2)(iv) would not apply as there was no privity of contract between the creditors of the company and the assessee. The assessee was not obliged to pay any interest to the creditors, and thus, the company did not pay any interest on behalf of the assessee. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, stating, "As the interest was not payable by the assessee to the company's creditors, there was no payment by the company in respect of any obligation of the assessee within the meaning of section 17(2)(iv)."

2. Applicability of section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal found that the benefit or amenity under section 17(2)(iii) must be non-refundable. Since the overdrawings in the current account were refundable by the assessee to the company, section 17(2)(iii) was not applicable. The High Court, however, disagreed, stating that the benefit derived by the assessee from the company was due to his status as an employee. The Court noted, "To the extent it allowed the assessee to use the funds of the company without any obligation to pay interest thereon, the company should certainly be deemed to have granted a benefit to the assessee."

3. Valuation of the benefit derived by the assessee:
The High Court allowed the assessee to raise the point regarding the actual overdrawings in the year of account in the proceedings u/s 260. The Court clarified, "We would make it clear that on the question of valuation of the benefit at 9 per cent. interest on the overdrawings, which was adopted by the Income-tax Officer, it was not open to the assessee to raise any dispute in the section 260 proceedings."

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal was incorrect in its decision that section 17(2)(iii) was not applicable. The reference was answered in the negative and in favor of the revenue, with the revenue being entitled to its costs.