1986 (2) TMI 85 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Allowance of expenditure on Director's remuneration and travelling as a deduction.

Analysis:

1. The appeals filed by the Department concerned the assessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, which were consolidated and heard together due to similar points involved. The Department contended that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure on Director's remuneration and travelling was necessary to retain the company's status and should be allowed as a deduction. The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing board and paper, had only earned interest income during the relevant years as it was in the process of constructing its factory. The ITO did not allow deductions for certain expenses, leading to a dispute. The CIT(A) referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court regarding necessary expenditure for retaining a company's status, and directed the ITO to allow the expenditure on Director's remuneration and travelling as deductions for both years.

2. In the Department's appeals, they contested the allowance of the mentioned expenditure, arguing that it was not necessary for retaining the company's status. The CIT(A) based his decision on previous assessments and the Department did not provide any new reasons to challenge it. The Departmental Representative referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court regarding interest payments on a loan, but the Tribunal found it irrelevant to the current case. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure on Director's remuneration and travelling was indeed necessary for retaining the company's status, as decided by the CIT(A), and upheld the decision without any new arguments presented against it.

3. The Tribunal dismissed the Departmental appeals, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the expenditure on Director's remuneration and travelling as deductions for the assessment years in question. The Tribunal found no valid reason to overturn the CIT(A)'s decision, as the Department failed to provide any substantial argument against it. The Tribunal differentiated the current case from the Calcutta High Court decision cited by the Department, emphasizing the specific issue at hand regarding necessary expenditure for retaining the company's status. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the dismissal of the Department's appeals.