1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court rules firm's messing expenditure as entertainment expenditure under Income-tax Act</h1> The High Court, after a Full Bench review, concluded that expenditure incurred by a firm for messing its customers constituted 'entertainment expenditure' ... Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure Issues:Interpretation of 'entertainment expenditure' under section 37(2A) and (2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the deduction of messing expenditure claimed by a registered firm engaged in wholesale business. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim under section 37(2B) of the Act, which led to an appeal by the assessee. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the plea of the assessee, allowing the rebate. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, relying on a previous court decision, categorized the expenses as 'in the nature of entertainment expenditure' and overturned the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. This decision was challenged by the assessee, leading to the reference of the question to the High Court.The High Court, upon hearing the case, observed a divergence of judicial opinion on the interpretation of 'entertainment expenditure.' It noted that the decision in a previous case had interpreted 'entertainment' in a literal sense, considering the provision of food to customers as an extension of common courtesy rather than entertainment. However, the court felt the need to reconsider this interpretation in light of societal norms and the concept of entertainment. Consequently, the High Court referred the question to a Full Bench for further consideration.The Full Bench, comprising three judges, examined the issue and concluded that any expenditure incurred by the assessee for messing its customers falls within the definition of 'expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure' under section 37(2A) and (2B) of the Act. The Full Bench upheld the previous decision of the court, which had been relied upon by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the Full Bench maintained that the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction for the messing expenditure, as it constituted entertainment expenditure.In light of the Full Bench's decision, the High Court rejected the reference, affirming the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to disallow the deduction of the expenditure. The court held that the expenditure was rightly disallowed under section 37(2B) of the Act, as it was considered to be in the nature of entertainment expenditure. No costs were awarded in the case.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal interpretation and application of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically focusing on the definition of 'entertainment expenditure' under sections 37(2A) and (2B) as determined by the Full Bench of the High Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
