2001 (7) TMI 71 - HC - Income Tax

Court allows full deduction for co-op society's milk marketing expenses under Income-tax Act

Kaira Dist. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax.

Kaira Dist. Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax. - [2002] 253 ITR 766, 172 CTR 212, 120 TAXMANN 910 Issues Involved1. Interpretation and application of Section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Eligibility of the entire expenditure of Rs. 43,69,466 for weighted deduction under Section 35C for the assessment year 1978-79.3. Determination of whether only 10% of the expenses incurred on dissemination of information or demonstration of modern techniques and methods is eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35C.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis1. Interpretation and Application of Section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961The court examined whether the activities carried out by the assessee, a Union of Co-operative Societies engaged in marketing milk and milk products, fell under the provisions of Section 35C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal had previously held that only 10% of the total expenses claimed would be eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35C. The Tribunal's reasoning was that the activities carried out by the assessee could not be said to be governed by Section 35C(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, as the benefits to the cattle owners were deemed incidental. The court found this interpretation to be flawed, stating that the provision does not envisage any concept of 'incidental benefit' and should be interpreted liberally to fulfill its objective.2. Eligibility of the Entire Expenditure for Weighted DeductionThe assessee claimed deductions for various expenditures including salary of veterinary doctors, veterinary medicines, veterinary transport, artificial insemination expenses, development and research expenses, fodder growing expenses, and Amul Patrika expenses. The Income-tax Officer allowed the deduction for Amul Patrika expenses but disallowed the rest. The Tribunal restored the disallowance of development and research expenses to the Income-tax Officer for adjudication. The court held that the activities such as artificial insemination, cross-breeding, and fodder growing expenses fall within the nature of expenses envisaged by Section 35C and are eligible for deduction. The court emphasized that the provision aims to promote rural development and should not be narrowly construed.3. Determination of 10% Eligibility for Weighted DeductionThe Tribunal had held that only 10% of the expenses incurred on dissemination of information or demonstration of modern techniques and methods was eligible for weighted deduction. The court found this approach unwarranted, as the provision does not permit bifurcating the allowable expenditure. The court stated that the entire expenditure claimed by the assessee, except for the items already dealt with by the Income-tax Officer, is eligible for deduction. The court concluded that the Tribunal's interpretation was incorrect and that the assessee is entitled to the full deduction claimed.ConclusionThe court concluded that the Tribunal was not right in its interpretation and application of Section 35C of the Income-tax Act. The first question was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The second and third questions were also answered in the negative, allowing the assessee to claim the entire expenditure except for the items already adjudicated by the Income-tax Officer. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.