9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion called Apeejay Educational Association Limited and another sum of Rs. 2 crores with Apeejay Medical Research and Welfare Association. The two amounts were deposited to be spent for the benefit of workmen and for other welfare activities in the eight estates. The company, in its income-tax return for the assessment year 1984-85, claimed deduction of Rs. 4 crores in its profit and loss account. The Income-tax Officer, on March 30, 1987, rejected the claim. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), on June 12, 1987, directed the Income-tax Officer to reframe the assessment order. Thereafter, in the assessment order passed on March 30, 1990, the Income-tax Officer held that the amount of Rs. 4 crores cannot be deducted as "section 40A(9) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company in this regard referred to sections 28, 29, 36(1)(iv), (v), (vi), 37(l), 40(a) and section 43B and section 40A of the Act and contended that the impugned provisions are ultra vires the Constitution. Alternatively, counsel argued, the date, February 28, 1984, contained in sub-sections (10) and (11) of section 40A be altered to March 31, 1984, to wipe out the discrimination and for doing justice to the petitioner-company. This writ petition is resisted by the Revenue, inter alia, on the ground that Rs. 4 crores were paid to the two associations without any statutory liability to pay the same. There was no legal obligation for the company to have paid the amounts to the two associations and, therefore, the company cannot claim d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge the inserted date. The impugned provisions, it is averred by the Revenue, are enforced against all assessees in the country uniformly only and, therefore, the Assam Frontier Tea Company is in no way discriminated against. The principal contention that is raised thus in the petition is the issue of discrimination under article 14 of the Constitution. For considering violation of article 14, no other material is relied on to support the assertion except what is set out above in the pleadings. From the above facts, we are unable to hold that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing any violation of article 14 of the Constitution. All assessees who paid contributions before March 1, 1984, are allowed to recover unspent monies. The ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, have to refer to the speeches of the Finance Minister when the Finance Bill of 1980 and the Finance Bill of 1984 were introduced. As to the reference of speeches made in Parliament, there was a controversy in, the past in the Commonwealth courts including the courts in the United Kingdom whether speeches made in Parliament can be referred to to gather the intention of statutory enactments. Such a controversy is no more res integra as the Supreme Court is relying liberally on the speeches made in Parliament. As an instance, in Petron Engineering Construction P. Ltd. v. CBD T [1989] 175 ITR 523, 531 (SC), a speech made before Parliament was referred to in the case to resolve the dispute. The Finance Minister, in Parliament, on February 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices adopted by the erring employers, the Finance Minister reiterated : "While on this subject, I would like to refer to a tendency noticed to create private trusts which carry on business. To curb such practice, I propose to provide that where such trusts have profits and gains of business, the entire income of the trust will be charged to tax at the maximum marginal rate, an exception being made only in the cases where the trust is created by will for dependent relatives. Another undesirable practice noticed is the tendency of some corporate bodies to make large contributions to so called welfare funds. I further understand that utilisation of these funds is discretionary and subject to no discipline. I am, therefore, providing that dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly led to believe that the company intended to donate the amounts to the two associations and not intended to claim the amounts as expenditure incurred by them. In this case, we make it clear that we are not considering the bona fides of the payments made by the company. May be the company has eight tea gardens, employs 14,500 workers and expends Rs. 70 lakhs every year for welfare measures. These facts, if they are true, may form an excellent background and lend a large measure of credence to the assertion made by the petitioner-company. But that is not the question at issue raised in the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on the case in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130, to read down the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
