TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Allows Revision Petition on Consultant's Fee, Orders Reconsideration of General Charges</h1> <h3>Nilgiri Plantations Limited Versus State Of Karnataka</h3> Nilgiri Plantations Limited Versus State Of Karnataka - [1986] 160 ITR 200, 61 CTR 64 Issues:- Revision against the Commissioner's order under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 regarding deductions for consultant's fee, general charges, and auditor's fee.Consultant's Fee:The Commissioner found fault with the assessment order for allowing deductions for consultant's fee without proper evidence of the nature of advice received from the consultants. The court agreed that without details of the advice, it is difficult to determine if the payment falls under the Act's provisions. The Commissioner's view that the payment should be for deriving agricultural income exclusively was deemed unjustified without relevant evidence. It was noted that presuming consultant fees for a coffee estate as capital expenditure without evidence is unwarranted.General Charges:Regarding general charges, the assessing officer disallowed a portion of the claimed amount due to lack of evidence through vouchers. The Commissioner's observation that only expenses directly linked to deriving agricultural income should be allowed was considered too general. The court pointed out that the assessing officer had already scrutinized the expenses and allowed only those supported by vouchers. Thus, there was no need to reconsider this matter.Auditor's Fee:The Commissioner questioned the deduction for auditor's fee, suggesting the fee might have been paid for other purposes beyond investigating accounts and preparing financial statements. The court disagreed, stating that it is unnecessary to doubt the purpose of the auditor's fee when it was explicitly stated that the fee was for audit services. The court allowed the revision petition in part, maintaining the Commissioner's decision on consultant's fee for further assessment and setting aside the orders on general charges and auditor's fee for reconsideration.
TaxTMI 