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>High Court affirms Tribunal decision on allowable expenditure under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lucknow Versus Symonds Distributors Pvt. Limited</h3> Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Lucknow Versus Symonds Distributors Pvt. Limited - [1977] 108 ITR 947, 1975 CTR 251 Issues involved:The judgment involves the interpretation of whether a sum paid by an assessee-company to another company is a revenue expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Details of the Judgment:The case concerned an assessee-company that entered into an agreement with another company for selling its products. Due to financial difficulties faced by the other company, the assessee reduced its commission and made a contribution towards its expenses. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner disallowed the claimed expenditure. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had differing opinions on the nature of the expenditure, with the Vice-President ultimately holding it as a revenue expenditure. The issue was whether the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business under section 37 of the Act.The Tribunal's findings included the inter-connection of the two companies, the financial crisis of the other company, and the voluntary nature of the expenditure by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the expenditure was incurred out of commercial expediency to safeguard a steady source of income. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing that the expenditure was not of a capital nature and was aimed at preserving and developing an existing source of income.The Court cited legal principles from previous cases to support its decision, highlighting that the expenditure was incurred for the benefit of the assessee's trade and was a prudent business decision. The Court noted that the expenditure in question was not to create lasting assets but to maintain an existing income source. Drawing parallels to a previous Supreme Court case, the Court affirmed that if an expenditure is wholly and exclusively laid out for business purposes, it is allowable under the Act.In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the expenditure was incurred out of commercial expediency and wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Court awarded costs to the assessee and upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the nature of the expenditure.
TaxTMI 