9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Application of graded disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Determination of whether Radha's Perfumery Enterprises qualifies as an industrial undertaking set up for the manufacture or production of any article under section 37(3D). Issue-Wise Analysis: 1. Application of Graded Disallowance under Section 37(3A): The primary issue was whether the graded disallowance under section 37(3A) should be applied to the total expenditure on advertisement, publicity, and business promotion incurred by the assessee across all businesses or to each business separately. The assessee argued that each business should be considered separately for disallowance purposes. The bifurcation of expenses was presented as follows: - Radha's Perfumery Enterprises: Rs. 45,247 - Kerala Sabdam Weekly: Rs. 26,274 The assessee also contended that Rs. 5,384.40 from Radha's Perfumery Enterprises should be excluded as it did not fall under advertisement, publicity, or sales promotion expenses. If excluded, the expenditure would fall below Rs. 40,000, making section 37(3A) inapplicable. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's argument, stating that each business is distinct and separate, and the disallowance under section 37(3A) should be applied to each business individually. This interpretation aligns with the departmental Circular No. 240 and the rationale that taxable profits are determined for each business separately. 2. Determination of Industrial Undertaking under Section 37(3D): The second issue was whether Radha's Perfumery Enterprises, which transitioned from a partnership to a sole proprietorship on 1-4-1978, qualifies as an industrial undertaking set up for the manufacture or production of any article, thereby exempting it from the disallowance under section 37(3A) as per section 37(3D). The assessee claimed that since he became the sole proprietor from 1-4-1978, the business should be considered a new industrial undertaking. The departmental representative argued that the emphasis should be on the undertaking, not the assessee, and since the business was a continuation, it should not qualify for the exemption. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's definition of "setting up" an industrial undertaking, which implies readiness to discharge its intended function. It was established that the manufacturing of Radha's Ayurvedic Soap began on 1-9-1977 by the partnership firm and continued by the assessee from 1-4-1978. The Tribunal cited a Bombay Bench decision, which held that the exemption under section 37(3D) applies irrespective of changes in ownership during the initial years of manufacturing. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that Radha's Perfumery Enterprises qualifies for the exemption under section 37(3D) for the assessment year 1979-80, as it fell within the second year of manufacturing. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 was deemed invalid. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the revisional orders of the Commissioner were cancelled. The Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 37(3A) should be applied to each business separately and that Radha's Perfumery Enterprises qualifies for the exemption under section 37(3D).
|
