1981 (9) TMI 24 - HC - Income Tax

High Court Upholds Additional Grounds for Capital Loss & Deems Entertainment Allowance Admissible

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise an additional ground for carrying forward a capital loss, which was upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal also ... Company Issues involved: The judgment involves two main issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee to raise an additional ground for carrying forward a capital loss. 2. Whether the entertainment allowance paid to a director of the assessee-company was admissible as a deduction.Issue 1 - Additional Ground for Capital Loss: The case involved Govindram Bros. Private Ltd. for the assessment year 1957-58. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) concluded that the transactions in shares were trading activities, not investments, resulting in a total income of Rs. 3,14,202. The assessee appealed, accepting the taxability of profits but sought to carry forward the balance amount as a capital loss. The Tribunal allowed this additional ground, directing the ITO to permit the carry forward. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the Tribunal was correct in allowing the additional ground and giving the necessary direction, as per the Income-tax Tribunal rules.Issue 2 - Entertainment Allowance: Regarding the entertainment allowance paid to the director, the ITO disallowed Rs. 60,000 under section 10(4A) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, due to lack of expenditure details. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) confirmed this disallowance. However, the Tribunal found that the ITO and AAC misapplied the Act. The Tribunal considered the legitimate business needs of the company and the benefit derived from the payment to the director. It was highlighted that the director provided valuable services without remuneration, justifying the allowance. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the ITO failed to conduct proper enquiries and apply the law correctly. Therefore, the Tribunal's view was upheld, and the entertainment allowance was deemed admissible.In conclusion, both questions were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.