1989 (9) TMI 170 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:

1. Deduction of excess collections under the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act.
2. Deduction of interest on excess collections.
3. Deduction of gratuity payments for the assessment year 1981-82.
4. Depreciation on staff quarters.
5. Deduction under section 80P for interest received from District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.
6. Extra shift allowance for the assessment year 1981-82.
7. Gratuity fund recognition for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84.
8. Donation to a school run by employees for the assessment year 1983-84.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deduction of Excess Collections under the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act:

The assessee, a co-operative society running a sugar mill, claimed deductions for excess collections made during the sugar seasons 1968 to 1972 and 1976 under the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act. The High Court had earlier ruled that the excess collections made prior to 1972 were outside the ambit of the Sugar Control Order. Thus, the assessee argued that the collections should be deductible as a statutory liability. However, the Tribunal held that since the High Court had categorically found in favor of the assessee, there was no liability for these collections unless the Supreme Court reversed the decision. Consequently, the claim for deduction of Rs. 16,97,819 was rejected.

2. Deduction of Interest on Excess Collections:

The assessee also claimed interest payable on the excess collections at 12.5%, as provided in section 3(3)(b) of the Fund Act. The Tribunal rejected this claim as well, reasoning that without an existing liability for the principal amount, the interest claim could not stand. The specific amounts disallowed for various assessment years were:

- 1977-78: Rs. 15,80,288
- 1978-79: Rs. 2,12,227
- 1979-80: Rs. 2,12,873
- 1980-81: Rs. 2,12,873
- 1981-82: Rs. 2,12,873
- 1982-83: Rs. 2,12,873
- 1983-84: Rs. 2,12,873

3. Deduction of Gratuity Payments for the Assessment Year 1981-82:

The Tribunal found that the assessee had initially claimed Rs. 92,109 as liability for gratuity payments but later reversed this entry. The assessing authority overlooked this reversal, leading to an incorrect disallowance. The Tribunal corrected this by deleting the addition.

4. Depreciation on Staff Quarters:

This issue was not pressed during the hearing and thus was not considered further.

5. Deduction under Section 80P for Interest Received from District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd:

The assessee claimed deductions under section 80P for interest received from fixed deposits with the Co-operative Central Bank. The Tribunal held that since the deposits were short-term and represented idle business funds, the interest was considered business receipts. Therefore, the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) was not available.

6. Extra Shift Allowance for the Assessment Year 1981-82:

The Tribunal noted that the Income-tax Officer had recognized the claim for extra shift allowance amounting to Rs. 54,016 but overlooked it while computing the income. The Tribunal directed the Income-tax Officer to allow this claim.

7. Gratuity Fund Recognition for the Assessment Years 1982-83 and 1983-84:

The assessee had created a gratuity fund and submitted it for recognition by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal directed that the deduction should be allowed subject to the Commissioner granting recognition to the gratuity fund.

8. Donation to a School Run by Employees for the Assessment Year 1983-84:

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 80,000 donated to a school run by employees within the factory premises. The Tribunal found a clear nexus between the expenditure and the assessee's business, considering it part of the welfare scheme for employees. The Tribunal held that sections 40A(9) and 40A(10) did not apply and allowed the deduction.

Conclusion:

The appeals were partly allowed, with specific deductions being rejected or accepted based on the detailed analysis of each issue.

← Previous Next →