1994 (10) TMI 30 - HC - Income Tax

Court ruling favors assessee on consultancy fees & earlier years' expenditure, but Revenue on interest, entertainment, & surtax.

Saurashtra Cement And Chemical Industries Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax

Saurashtra Cement And Chemical Industries Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax - [1995] 213 ITR 523, 122 CTR 329, 80 TAXMANN 61 Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of Rs. 17,475 out of consultancy fees under section 80VV of the Act.2. Disallowance of interest paid under section 220 of the Income-tax Act.3. Disallowance of Rs. 8,048 as entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) of the Act.4. Deduction of surtax liability of Rs. 2,79,057 as business expenditure.5. Allowability of expenditure of Rs. 39,823 incurred in the relevant year but related to earlier years.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 17,475 out of Consultancy Fees under Section 80VVThe Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 17,475 out of the consultancy fees claimed by the assessee under section 80VV of the Income-tax Act. Section 80VV allows a deduction of up to Rs. 5,000 for expenses incurred in proceedings before income-tax authorities or courts related to tax liability determination. The court interpreted that the limit of Rs. 5,000 applies to each proceeding independently, not to the total expenditure of a previous year. The court disagreed with the Calcutta High Court's decision in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. CIT and upheld the view that the limit applies per case. Consequently, the court answered in favor of the assessee, negating the Tribunal's disallowance.Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest Paid under Section 220The Tribunal disallowed the interest paid by the assessee for late payment of tax under section 220, arguing it was not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The assessee cited the Supreme Court's decision in Prakash Cotton Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT, which distinguishes between compensatory and penal expenses. The court, however, held that interest on late tax payment, although compensatory, does not qualify as a business expense under section 37(1). The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Padmavati Jaikrishna (Smt.) v. Addl. CIT, which disallowed interest on borrowed money for tax payment. Thus, the court affirmed the Tribunal's disallowance, ruling in favor of the Revenue.Issue 3: Disallowance of Rs. 8,048 as Entertainment ExpenditureThe Tribunal disallowed Rs. 8,048 incurred by the directors as entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B). The Tribunal found the expenses to be lavish and not wholly and exclusively for business purposes. This finding, being a factual determination, was not challenged on permissible grounds. Therefore, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, answering in favor of the Revenue.Issue 4: Deduction of Surtax Liability of Rs. 2,79,057The Tribunal disallowed the assessee's claim for deducting surtax liability as a business expense. The court noted that this issue was already settled in favor of the Revenue in S. L. M. Maneklal Industries Ltd. v. CIT. Consequently, the court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the Revenue.Issue 5: Allowability of Expenditure of Rs. 39,823The Tribunal disallowed Rs. 39,823 incurred in the relevant year but related to earlier years, as the assessee maintained accounts on a mercantile basis. The court disagreed with the Tribunal, stating that expenses related to earlier transactions can be claimed if the liability crystallized in the relevant year. The court emphasized that the mercantile system requires recognizing actual, crystallized liabilities. The court referenced CIT v. Nathmal Tolaram, supporting the view that genuine, enforceable liabilities can be claimed in the year they are quantified. Thus, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the expenditure.ConclusionThe court delivered a mixed judgment, ruling in favor of the assessee on Issues 1 and 5, and in favor of the Revenue on Issues 2, 3, and 4. The detailed analysis highlights the court's reasoning and interpretation of relevant sections of the Income-tax Act, maintaining the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original judgment.