1997 (2) TMI 39 - HC - Income Tax

Ruling on Department's Perquisites and Entertainment Expenditure

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Tv. Sundaram Iyengar And Sons

The court partially ruled in favor of the Department, classifying salary to watchmen and depreciation allowance as perquisites, while excluding rates and ... Business Expenditure, Perquisite Issues Involved:1. Classification of certain expenses as perquisites under section 40(c)/40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Classification of sales promotion and miscellaneous expenses as entertainment expenditure.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of Certain Expenses as PerquisitesExpenses like rates and taxes, maintenance of buildings and vehicles, salary to watchmen, and personal accident insurance premium:The Income-tax Officer (ITO) treated these expenditures as perquisites under section 40(c)/40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and disallowed the excess amount over the statutory limit. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) disagreed, holding that these expenses could not be classified as perquisites. The court observed that:- Rates and Taxes: These payments were made by the company to fulfill its statutory obligations and not for the benefit of directors or employees. Therefore, they cannot be regarded as perquisites. This view was supported by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. [1994] 207 ITR 589.- Maintenance of Vehicles: The court held that the expenditure incurred for maintaining vehicles is for the company's benefit and not for providing any perquisite to employees or directors. This was consistent with the Calcutta High Court's view in CIT v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. [1994] 207 ITR 589 and the Gujarat High Court in Cellulose Products of India Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 218 ITR 490.- Depreciation Allowance: The Supreme Court in CWS (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 649 held that depreciation allowance is subject to the ceiling provided under section 40(c)/40A(5). Hence, the court agreed that depreciation allowance should be disallowed to the extent it exceeds the ceiling limit.- Personal Accident Insurance Premium: The Delhi High Court in CIT v. Vinay Bharat Ram [1981] 129 ITR 128 held that the premium paid by the company on an accident policy is not a perquisite as the benefit accrues to the company, not the employee. The court agreed with this view.Conclusion on Issue 1:The court answered the first question in the affirmative for expenses related to rates and taxes, maintenance of vehicles, and personal accident insurance premium, stating they cannot be treated as perquisites. However, the salary paid to watchmen and depreciation allowance were to be treated as perquisites and subject to disallowance under section 40(c)/40A(5).Issue 2: Classification of Sales Promotion and Miscellaneous Expenses as Entertainment ExpenditureSales Promotion Expenses and Miscellaneous Expenses:The ITO disallowed Rs. 5,000 under sales promotion expenses and Rs. 4,367 under miscellaneous expenses, treating them as entertainment expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and ITAT disagreed, but the court observed:- Sales Promotion Expenses: The expenditure was incurred for providing refreshments to customers, which should be classified as entertainment expenditure. This view is supported by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Patel Brothers and Co. Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 165 and Explanation 2 to section 37(2A) of the Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 1983, with effect from April 1, 1976.- Miscellaneous Expenses: Similarly, the expenditure towards refreshments for customers falls under entertainment expenditure as per the retrospective amendment.Conclusion on Issue 2:The court answered the second question in the negative, holding that both the sums disallowed under sales promotion expenses and miscellaneous expenses should be regarded as entertainment expenditure.Final Judgment:The court ruled in favor of the Department on the second issue, confirming that the disallowed sums are entertainment expenditure. On the first issue, the court partially ruled in favor of the Department, classifying salary to watchmen and depreciation allowance as perquisites, while excluding rates and taxes, maintenance of vehicles, and personal accident insurance premium from being treated as perquisites.