9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Reimbursement of medical charges and personal accident insurance premium. 2. Investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Reimbursement of Medical Charges and Personal Accident Insurance Premium: The Department contested the CIT (A)'s decision to allow the assessee's claims for medical reimbursement of Rs. 4,760 and personal accident insurance premium of Rs. 541. The ITO had disallowed these claims under Section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, asserting that these payments formed part of the salary and were thus subject to disallowance. The CIT (A) allowed these claims based on precedents from the Madras High Court (CIT vs. Manjushree Plantations Ltd.) and the Delhi High Court (CIT vs. Lala Shri Dhar). The Tribunal examined the applicability of Section 40A(5) and the relevant case laws. It noted that the Kerala High Court's decision in CIT vs. Commonwealth Trust Ltd. emphasized that benefits in kind, including cash allowances, fall under Section 40A(5). However, the Tribunal also considered its own previous ruling in ITA No. 1385 (Mds) 82, which followed the Madras High Court's decision favoring the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT (A) was justified in allowing the claims for medical reimbursement and insurance premium, confirming the CIT (A)'s order on this issue. 2. Investment Allowance under Section 32A: The second issue concerned the assessee's claim for an investment allowance of Rs. 6,37,530 under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act for plant and machinery leased out by the assessee. The ITO had disallowed this claim, arguing that the investment allowance is only permissible for machinery or plant owned and used by the assessee for its business. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 32A, which stipulate that the machinery or plant must be owned by the assessee and used wholly for the business carried on by the assessee. The Tribunal referenced the Madras High Court's decision in CWT vs. K. Lakshmi, which clarified that an industrial undertaking must be directly involved in manufacturing to qualify for investment allowance. The Tribunal also cited its own decision in ITA No. 491 (Mds) 82, which held that an industrial undertaking leasing machinery does not qualify for relief under Section 80J, and by extension, Section 32A. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessee leased out the machinery to lessees who used it for their manufacturing, the assessee did not meet the conditions for the investment allowance under Section 32A. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT (A)'s order on this issue and restored the ITO's disallowance. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision to allow the claims for medical reimbursement and personal accident insurance premium but reversed the CIT (A)'s decision on the investment allowance, restoring the ITO's original disallowance. The appeal was thus partly allowed.
|
