Court Allows Ex-Gratia Payment as Deductible Expense for Assessment Year 2007-2008

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, allowing the ex-gratia payment as a deductible expense for the assessment year 2007-2008. It determined that the payment had a commercial nexus, as it was approved by the Board and ratified in the Annual General Meeting, in accordance with Section 63 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act. The Court emphasized the consistent practice of providing incentives to employees by the assessee, supported by past approvals, and found the ex-gratia payments to be commercially expedient and hence allowable. The appeal was dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Deductibility of ex-gratia payment as an expense for the assessment year 2007-2008.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in allowing ex-gratia payment as a deductible expense, contending that it lacks a commercial nexus. Citing Section 63 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, the appellant relied on the judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mafatlal Fine Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. The respondent, on the other hand, supported the Tribunal's decision, stating that the ex-gratia payment was approved by the Board and ratified in the Annual General Meeting, falling within the purview of Section 63 of the Act.

The Court examined Section 63 of the Act, which empowers the Board of Directors to approve ex-gratia payments to employees. It noted the consistent practice of extending incentives to employees by the assessee, accepted by the Revenue. Relying on precedents like CIT Vs. Maina Ore Transport P. Ltd. and Shahzada Nand & Sons Vs. CIT, the Tribunal found ex-gratia payments to be commercially expedient and hence allowable.

In contrast to the Mafatlal Fine Spg. & Mfg. Co.Ltd. case, where evidence was lacking regarding the agreement with employees and reasonableness of ex-gratia payments, the present case demonstrated a clear practice of making such payments, supported by the Tribunal's observations and past departmental approvals. Consequently, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal, leading to its dismissal without costs.

---