1966 (1) TMI 21 - SC - Income Tax

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee-company is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 12, 873 being the wealth-tax paid during the account year ended February 29 1960 against the profits and gains of its business for the assessment year 1960-61 under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act ? Held that - In the light of the principles the amount of tax paid on the net wealth of an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act is not a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act in his assessment to income-tax for tax is imposed under the Wealth-tax Act on the owner of assets and not on any commercial activity. The charge of the tax is the same whether the assets are part of or used in the trading Organisation of the owner or are merely owned by him. The assets of the taxpayer incorporated or not become chargeable to tax because they are owned by him and not because they are used by him in the business. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Deductibility of wealth-tax paid by a company under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with the deductibility of wealth-tax paid by a company under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The appellant-company claimed that the wealth-tax paid was expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business, making it a permissible allowance under the Act. However, the court examined the true character of the liability for payment of tax under the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing that the tax is charged on the net wealth of individuals and companies, not on the business activity itself. The tax is imposed on the owner of assets, irrespective of their use in business activities. The court clarified that the tax paid on the net wealth of an assessee under the Wealth-tax Act does not qualify as a permissible deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act in the assessment to income-tax. The judgment highlighted that for an expenditure to be deductible under section 10(2)(xv), it must be directly and intimately connected with the business and laid out by the taxpayer in their capacity as a trader. The court concluded that the wealth-tax paid did not meet the criteria for a permissible deduction under the Income-tax Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The court emphasized that the nature of the expenditure must be adjudged in line with accepted commercial practice and trading principles. The expenditure should be incidental to the business, necessitated by commercial expediency, and directly connected with the business. The judgment cited previous cases to illustrate that every item of expenditure connected with the trade may not necessarily qualify as a permissible deduction. The court referred to various tests applied in determining the deductibility of expenditures under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the need for a direct and intimate connection between the expenditure and the business. The judgment outlined that the purpose of the expenditure should be for the carrying on of the business, and the taxpayer should incur it in their capacity as a person engaged in business activities.

In analyzing the claim for deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act, the court examined the meaning of the expression "for the purpose of such business." The appellant argued that tax paid on assets used for earning profits should be considered expenditure for the purpose of the business. The court, however, clarified that the tax under the Wealth-tax Act is charged on the net wealth of the owner, not on the business activity itself. The judgment highlighted that the tax liability remains the same whether the assets are utilized in the trading Organization or merely owned by the taxpayer. The court reiterated that the charge of tax under the Wealth-tax Act is based on asset ownership, not commercial activity, rendering the wealth-tax paid non-deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act.

← Previous Next →