TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether, for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the value of perquisites (specifically free use of car) should be taken as the amount taxed in the hands of employees or the actual expenditure incurred by the employer, and whether medical reimbursement is a perquisite for this purpose.
2. Whether the Assessing Officer is obliged to compute and allow depreciation suo motu where the assessee has not claimed depreciation in the return.
3. Whether loss arising from fluctuation in foreign exchange on repayment of a foreign currency loan taken for acquisition of plant and machinery is revenue expenditure or part of the capital cost of the asset (i.e., capital expenditure).
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Treatment of perquisites under section 40A(5): legal framework
- Legal framework: Section 40A(5) limits the aggregate value of perquisites provided to an employee to one-fifth of his salary for the purpose of allowability as business expenditure; perquisites include facilities such as free use of a car. The employer's deduction is restricted to that statutory limit.
- Precedent Treatment: Prior authority(s) have held that the valuation of perquisites (including car use) must be determined consistently, and that the value assessed in the hands of the employee (computed under relevant rules) is relevant to assessment. Other decisions of high courts have been treated as instructive on valuation principles and on the treatment of particular items (e.g., medical reimbursements).
- Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the actual disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, which was a lump restriction under section 40A(5) of perquisites exceeding one-fifth of salary, rather than a specific computation of car perquisite under the rules. The assessable aggregate of perquisites (including car facility, accommodation, servants' salaries, club fees) exceeded the statutory ceiling and was therefore disallowed proportionately. Medical reimbursement was held not to constitute a perquisite for the purposes of section 40A(5) in the facts of this case.
- Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The statutory ceiling in section 40A(5) must be applied to the aggregate value of perquisites and the Assessing Officer's disallowance of the excess over 1/5th of salary is correct where perquisites so computed exceed the limit. The decision that medical reimbursement is not includible as a perquisite (on the facts) is treated as part of the operative reasoning (binding for similar fact patterns in this court).
- Conclusions: The Assessing Officer was correct to disallow the value of perquisites to the extent they exceeded one-fifth of the employee's salary. The Tribunal's approach of restricting the employer's deduction to the amount assessed in the hands of the employees was not the determinative controversy here because the Assessing Officer's disallowance operated under section 40A(5) on aggregate perquisites; the Court affirms the disallowance in favour of the Revenue. Medical reimbursement is not includible as a perquisite in the present context.
Cross-reference: The Court observed that this issue is distinct from valuation under the applicable rules for employee assessment; where an Assessing Officer makes a section 40A(5) disallowance, the question is the statutory ceiling on perquisites rather than the separate valuation methodology applied in the hands of the employee.
Issue 2 - Obligation of Assessing Officer to allow depreciation without claim: legal framework
- Legal framework: Depreciation is an allowable deduction under the Act when properly claimed and supported; assessment proceedings ordinarily follow claims made by the assessee in return.
- Precedent Treatment: Earlier decisions of the court have held that an Assessing Officer is not competent to grant depreciation suo motu against the clear omission or election of the assessee not to claim it in the return or revised return.
- Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the established principle, where the assessee did not claim depreciation in the return, the Assessing Officer was not bound to compute and allow depreciation on his own. The Court follows prior authoritative rulings that the AO cannot override the assessee's omission and make a unilateral allowance of depreciation.
- Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Assessing Officer is not required to allow depreciation when the assessee has not claimed it; this is binding for similar circumstances in assessment practice. (Observations on the correctness of that practice form the operative rule.)
- Conclusions: The Assessing Officer was not obliged to compute and allow depreciation in the absence of a claim; the question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Issue 3 - Characterisation of foreign exchange loss on repayment as capital or revenue expenditure: legal framework
- Legal framework: Expenditure which directly increases the cost of acquiring a capital asset forms part of the capital cost of the asset; revenue expenditure is incurred in the course of running the business. Sectional provisions and principles recognise that variations in consideration between agreement and acquisition that alter the cost are reflected as part of capital cost.
- Precedent Treatment: Several High Court decisions have taken the view that increased payment due to exchange rate fluctuation, where referable to the purchase price of a machine, is not an allowable revenue expenditure but increases the capital cost of the asset and is to be capitalised (with depreciation permissible on the increased capitalised amount).
- Interpretation and reasoning: On the facts, the foreign currency loan was raised to purchase machinery and repayments were made at a rupee value higher than originally estimated because of exchange rate movements; the extra payment was referable to the cost of acquisition of the machinery. The Court held that such additional payment increases the cost of the capital asset rather than being deductible as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal's direction that the Assessing Officer verify amounts and allow depreciation on the capitalised figure accords with this treatment.
- Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Losses or additional payments on account of exchange rate fluctuation that increase the vendor price or the amount payable for acquisition of a capital asset are capital in nature and must be included in the cost of acquisition; this is binding for analogous fact situations. The Court's reliance on analogous high court authorities reinforces this as the settled approach.
- Conclusions: The loss of Rs. 66,698 attributable to exchange rate fluctuation on repayment of a foreign currency loan taken for purchase of machinery is capital expenditure and forms part of the cost of the machinery; it is not allowable as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer should verify the arithmetic and allow depreciation on the increased capitalised amount.
TaxTMI 
