Deductibility and investment allowance rules turn on accrued liability, statutory conditions, and approved superannuation fund contributions.

Commission paid to directors and senior management was treated as falling within the disallowance provisions in sections 40(c) and 40A(5). Surtax liability under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was not deductible in computing business income. Investment allowance under section 32A was denied on new canteen equipment because the allowance is confined to plant and machinery used for manufacture or production and the statutory conditions were not satisfied. A provision for differential excise duty and consequential sales tax was disallowed because no accrued and legally enforceable liability existed in the assessee's hands. Full deduction was allowed for the initial contribution to an approved superannuation fund under section 36(1)(iv).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether commission paid to directors and senior management staff was to be considered under section 40(c) and section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether liability to tax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was an admissible deduction in computing business income; (iii) whether investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was admissible on new canteen equipment; (iv) whether the provision for differential excise duty and consequential sales tax was allowable as deduction; and (v) whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of the full initial contribution made to the approved superannuation fund under section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether commission paid to directors and senior management staff was to be considered under section 40(c) and section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The answer was governed by the binding precedent on the scope of the provisions dealing with disallowance of remuneration and perquisites to directors and specified employees. On the facts, the commission payment fell within the ambit of the disallowance provisions.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether liability to tax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was an admissible deduction in computing business income.

Analysis: The question stood concluded by earlier authority holding that surtax liability is not deductible in computing business profits under the head "profits and gains of business or profession".

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was admissible on new canteen equipment.

Analysis: Investment allowance under section 32A is confined to new plant and machinery installed for the purpose of manufacture or production of an article or thing. A canteen maintained for employee welfare may be part of the factory environment, but the equipment used therein is not, by that reason alone, plant and machinery used for manufacture or production. The assessee also failed to establish that the canteen equipment itself satisfied the statutory conditions for the allowance.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the provision for differential excise duty and consequential sales tax was allowable as deduction.

Analysis: Liability to pay excise duty rests on the manufacturer under the Central excise law, and the assessee-purchaser's obligation, if any, arose only contingently under the contractual arrangement and only upon the manufacturer's liability being determined and recovered. The letters relied on did not create a present accrued liability in the hands of the assessee, and the manufacturer itself had treated the disputed levy as contingent. Hence the assessee's claim lacked the character of an accrued statutory liability.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and against the assessee.

Issue (v): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction of the full initial contribution made to the approved superannuation fund under section 36(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The question was concluded by the earlier decision dealing with initial contribution to an approved superannuation fund and the statutory conditions governing its deduction. Applying that authority, the assessee was entitled to the full amount claimed.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by sustaining the Revenue's stand on the first four issues while allowing the assessee's claim on the superannuation fund contribution issue, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: For deduction purposes, a liability must be accrued and legally enforceable in the assessee's hands, and investment allowance is available only where the statutory conditions show that the plant or machinery is used for the manufacture or production of an article or thing.

---