2003 (4) TMI 2 - HC - Income Tax

Tribunal was right in allowing deduction u/s 32A in respect of the computers installed in the office premises - Tribunal was right in law in allowing the travelling expenses incurred on the staff members of the head office on their visit to the branch office of the assessee in India - Tribunal was not right in law in allowing maintenance expenses incurred by the assessee on the flat owned by it and provided to its employees

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintenance expenses incurred on a flat owned by the assessee for employees.
2. Allowance of maintenance expenses incurred by the bank on its ownership flat.
3. Deduction under section 32A for computers installed in the office premises.
4. Travelling expenses incurred on staff members visiting the branch office.

Issue 1 - Maintenance Expenses on Flat:
The court considered if the Tribunal was correct in allowing maintenance expenses on a flat owned by the assessee provided to its employees. Referring to a previous judgment, the court ruled against the assessee, stating the expenses should not be allowed.

Issue 2 - Maintenance Expenses by Bank:
The court deliberated on whether the maintenance expenses incurred by the bank on its ownership flat resulted in perquisites to employees and should be considered for disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. Citing a previous decision, the court ruled in favor of the Department, stating the expenses should not be considered for computing disallowance.

Issue 3 - Deduction under Section 32A for Computers:
The court examined if the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 32A for new computers installed in the office premises. The Department argued that the computers were office appliances and not plant or machinery under the relevant section. However, the court sided with the assessee, considering the computers as part of the industrial undertaking, supporting its decision with various judgments and finding all conditions of section 32A(2)(b)(iii) satisfied.

Issue 4 - Travelling Expenses:
The court analyzed the allowance of travelling expenses incurred on staff members visiting the branch office. It clarified the applicability of section 44C, emphasizing the distinction between expenses incurred exclusively for the branch office and those related to general administrative expenses. With concurrent findings supporting that the expenses were solely for the branch office, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that section 44C did not apply in this case.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the reference with no order as to costs, providing detailed reasoning and legal interpretations for each issue raised in the judgment.