2005 (9) TMI 54 - HC - Income Tax

Allowability u/s 37 - Contribution to the superannuation fund - Donation to an education society - Expenditure towards supply of tea, soft drinks Legal expenses - Foreign travel expenses - Whether provisions of the Income-tax Rules 87 and 88 and the Board s notification issued in exercise of the powers conferred under section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act should be ignored as being in conflict with the provisions of section 36(1)(iv)? - Whether road constructed by the company constituted plant within the meaning of section 43(3), and is eligible for depreciation allowance Whether interest under section 216 could be levied on the advance tax payable itself was not underestimated being the amount payable in instalments was less Whether full liability on actuarial basis on account of special provision represented on accrued liability and was an admissible deduction in computing the profits of the assessee-company

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of ignoring Income-tax Rules 87 and 88 and Board's notification under section 36(1)(iv).
2. Deduction under section 37 for initial contribution to the superannuation fund.
3. Allowability of donation to an education society as business expenditure.
4. Classification of expenditure on tea and soft drinks as entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B).
5. Classification of road constructed by the company as 'plant' for depreciation allowance.
6. Levy of interest under section 216 for underestimated advance tax.
7. Allowability of actuarial liability for special provision as deduction.
8. Classification of legal and foreign travel expenses for merger as revenue expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

Question Nos. 1 and 2:
The Tribunal's decision to ignore Income-tax Rules 87 and 88 and the Board's notification under section 36(1)(iv) was upheld. The court referenced CIT v. Mahindra Sintered Products Ltd. and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT, which relied on CIT v. Sirpur Paper Mills, concluding that the Central Board of Direct Taxes' notification cannot limit the deduction scope granted by the Act. Thus, both questions were answered in favor of the assessee.

Question No. 3:
The issue of whether the donation to an education society was allowable as business expenditure was also covered by Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT. The court answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee.

Question No. 4:
The question regarding the expenditure on tea and soft drinks being entertainment expenditure was not pressed by the Revenue due to the negligible amount involved. Consequently, the question was returned unanswered.

Question No. 5:
The classification of the road constructed by the company as 'plant' was addressed by referencing Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd. The court held that the road within the factory premises is not a plant but a building. Hence, the question was answered in favor of the Revenue.

Question No. 6:
The issue of interest under section 216 was discussed in detail. The Income-tax Officer had levied interest without finding that the assessee underestimated its income. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision, which followed Addl. CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. The court emphasized the necessity of recording a finding by the Income-tax Officer, agreeing with the Tribunal's view, thus answering the question in favor of the assessee.

Question No. 7:
The Tribunal found that the actuarially quantified liability for special pension should be allowed as a deduction. The court referenced CIT v. National Insurance Co. of India and other cases, agreeing that the liability was definite and accrued, thus allowing the deduction. The question was answered in favor of the assessee.

Question No. 8:
The legal and foreign travel expenses for the merger were held to be of revenue nature, referencing CIT v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. The court answered the question in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:
The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs, with most questions answered in favor of the assessee, except for the classification of the road as a plant, which was answered in favor of the Revenue.

← Previous Next →