1985 (9) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

High Court clarifies entertainment expenses treatment under Income-tax Act, emphasizes clarity on hospitality expenses

The High Court of Rajasthan addressed the assessment of M/s. Yadav Transport Service's expenses, including entertainment, office, and miscellaneous ... Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Reference Issues:Assessment of entertainment, office, and miscellaneous expenses by the Income-tax Officer, Disallowance of part of the expenses, Appeal to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Tribunal's interpretation of entertainment expenditure, Application under section 256(1) dismissed, Amendment to section 37 by Finance Act 1983, Introduction of Explanation 2 to sub-section (2A) of section 37, Reframing of the question by the High Court.Analysis:The High Court of Rajasthan addressed three applications concerning the assessment of M/s. Yadav Transport Service's expenses, including entertainment, office, and miscellaneous expenses for the years 1976-77, 1977-78, and 1978-79. The Income-tax Officer disallowed a portion of these expenses, which was partially upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's objection to wholly disallow entertainment expenses based on section 37(2A) and section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, interpreting 'entertainment expenditure' liberally. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous Supreme Court ruling regarding hospitality expenses.The Commissioner of Income-tax filed an application under section 256(1) of the Act, which was rejected by the Tribunal. Subsequently, the Finance Act of 1983 amended section 37 with retrospective effect, adding Explanation 2 to sub-section (2A) to clarify that hospitality expenses provided to any person by the assessee, excluding employees, constitute entertainment expenditure. The High Court noted that the Tribunal did not consider office and miscellaneous expenses, making their mention impermissible in the reference question. The High Court highlighted that after the retrospective insertion of Explanation 2, expenses like providing tea, coffee, or customary hospitality to customers fall under entertainment expenditure.In light of these considerations, the High Court reframed the question to focus on whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing expenses incurred by the assessee on providing customary hospitality to customers. The Court directed the Tribunal to refer this question for consideration. The judgment emphasized the significance of the amended provisions and the need for clarity on the treatment of entertainment expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. The parties were instructed to bear their own costs, and the Tribunal was given the option to make a consolidated reference for all three assessment years if desired.