1985 (10) TMI 4 - SC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the difference between Rs. 2,09,920.88 and the amount that had been allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was a business expenditure incurred by the assessee in the relevant previous year and in allowing the same as a deductible expenditure - High Court is right in answering the question referred to it in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee

Issues:
- Interpretation of business expenditure incurred by the assessee
- Allowability of deductions for contributions made towards pension and life assurance plan
- Application of tax deduction at source provisions
- Control over funds under the pension and life assurance plan

Interpretation of business expenditure incurred by the assessee:
The case involved a dispute regarding the deductibility of contributions made by the assessee towards a pension and life assurance plan for its employees. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deductions for the assessment year 1956-57, which was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed deductions only for contributions made to policies of employees who had received pensionary and retirement benefits. The subsequent assessments for earlier years were also reopened, leading to further disputes over deductions. The rules under the plan were amended in 1957, transferring control over the funds to the plan members. The issue revolved around whether the contributions made by the assessee constituted business expenditure and were allowable as deductions under the Income-tax Act.

Allowability of deductions for contributions made towards pension and life assurance plan:
For the assessment year 1959-60, the assessee claimed deductions for all contributions made towards the policies. The Income-tax Officer allowed a portion of the contribution made in the relevant year following the rule amendment. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal restricted the deductions to specific payments made by the society to employees. The assessee contended that the remaining balance should be considered as an allowable business expenditure due to the rule amendment. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the deductions were permissible under relevant sections of the Income-tax Act.

Application of tax deduction at source provisions:
The Commissioner of Income-tax argued that the tax deduction at source provisions barred the deductions claimed by the assessee. However, it was established through findings of fact by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal that tax had indeed been deducted at source by the assessee when making contributions to the premium. This finding was not challenged and was upheld, leading to the rejection of the Commissioner's contention.

Control over funds under the pension and life assurance plan:
The crucial aspect of the case was the control over the funds under the pension and life assurance plan. The rules were amended in 1957, transferring control of the amounts due under the policies to the plan members. This change in control was significant in determining the timing of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The court held that the entire amount contributed by the assessee must be considered as expended during the relevant accounting period for the assessment year 1959-60, following the rule amendment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court in favor of the assessee, dismissing the appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The judgment clarified the interpretation of business expenditure, the allowability of deductions for contributions made towards the pension and life assurance plan, the application of tax deduction at source provisions, and the impact of the control over funds under the plan on the timing of expenditure.

← Previous Next →