1997 (2) TMI 45 - HC - Income Tax

Deductions denied for tips to employees in transport business

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to disallow deductions claimed by a partnership firm in the transport business for expenses on tips and ... Business Expenditure, Purpose Of Business, Mixed Question, Transport, Bribes, Illegal Issues Involved: The judgment involves applications u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act seeking a direction against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for referring questions of law regarding the admissibility of certain expenditures under section 37(1) of the Act.Judgment Details:Issue 1 - Expenditure Claimed for Running Business:The applicant, a partnership firm in the transport business, claimed deductions for expenses incurred on tips and greasing palms of transport department employees. The assessing authority disallowed these deductions, stating they were not verifiable and amounted to illegal gratification. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, citing the payments as unlawful and against public policy. The Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and rejected the application for reference u/s 256(2).Issue 2 - Allowability of Expenditure under Section 37(1):The applicant argued that any expenditure for business operation should be allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. However, the Department contended that such expenditures, being illegal payments, were not verifiable and opposed to public policy. The Tribunal found the payments to be illegal gratification and rightly disallowed them as deductions. The High Court concurred, emphasizing that only legal expenditures can be claimed as allowable deductions.Separate Judgment by Judges:The High Court, in line with the Tribunal's findings, held that the payments in question were illegal and opposed to public policy, thus not eligible for deduction. Referring to legal precedents, the Court emphasized that unlawful payments cannot be considered as business expenditure, as they are against the law and public interest. The Court rejected the applications for reference, stating there were no grounds for such a direction.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the applications for reference, upholding the Tribunal's decision to disallow the claimed expenditures. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the matter.