Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and directing disallowance of VAT under section 40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether VAT paid by the assessee was an allowable expenditure.
Analysis: The assessee's VAT liability was examined in the context of the nature of the levy and the scope of section 40(a)(iib). The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in the assessee's own case and the connected decision for a later assessment year, holding that VAT is a tax collected from customers and remitted to the Government, not a royalty, licence fee, service fee, privilege fee, service charge, or any other fee or charge by whatever name called. It further held that VAT is not levied exclusively on the assessee and cannot be treated as an appropriation by the State Government. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the revisionary order proceeded on an incorrect application of section 40(a)(iib), and that the expenditure remained allowable under sections 37 and 43B.
Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was held to be unsustainable, and the assessee's VAT claim was held allowable.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tax collected from customers and remitted to the State, which is neither a fee or charge nor an appropriation by the State, does not fall within section 40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.