Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 1987 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1987 (4) TMI 102 - AT - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Allowance of building and miscellaneous repair expenses disallowed by the ITO.
2. Allowance of productivity incentive bonus disallowed by the ITO.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Allowance of Building and Miscellaneous Repair Expenses
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the disallowance of Rs. 28,138 under 'building repairs' and Rs. 7,186 under 'miscellaneous repairs' for the assessment year 1980-81. The ITO disallowed the expenses as there was no agreement between the tenant (assessee) and the parent company regarding repairs in the tenanted premises. The ITO argued that only expenses agreed to by the tenant are allowable under s. 30(a)(i). The CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating that agreement for repairs is not crucial for allowance under s. 30(a)(i) and that sec. 37 would be applicable. The Revenue contended that without an agreement, the claim cannot fall under s. 37 and sought restoration of the ITO's order. The assessee argued that repairs were necessary for the premises' proper condition, and past similar expenses were allowed. The ITAT held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the expenses as they were revenue in nature, necessitated by business needs, and no capital expenditure was involved. The appeal on this ground was rejected.

Issue 2: Allowance of Productivity Incentive Bonus
The second point in appeal concerned the allowance of productivity incentive bonus disallowed by the ITO. The ITO treated the bonus as falling under the Bonus Act and disallowed it. The CIT(A) observed that the bonus was paid per an agreement with the employees' union, exceeding the Bonus Act's limit. The CIT(A) also noted that the bonus was akin to wages for increased output. Considering the circumstances and CBDT instructions, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the bonus payment. Consequently, this ground of appeal failed. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the ITAT.

This judgment clarifies the criteria for allowing repair expenses, emphasizing the business necessity and revenue nature of expenses. It also highlights the treatment of productivity bonuses and the relevance of agreements in determining the allowability of expenses under different sections of the Income Tax Act.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates