1996 (10) TMI 58 - HC - Income Tax

Additional Depreciation Appeal To Tribunal Assessing Officer Business Expenditure Capital Expenditure Claiming Depreciation Expenditure Incurred In The Nature Investment Allowance Revenue Expenditure Wholly And Exclusively

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of expenditure on gifts and presents made to foreign collaborators.
2. Reduction of value of presented articles as per rule 6B.
3. Allowability of depreciation, additional depreciation, and investment allowance on expenditure incurred on foreign tour.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Allowability of expenditure on gifts and presents made to foreign collaborators:
The assessee-company filed a return of income showing expenditures on gifts, which were partially disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner of Income-tax further reduced the disallowance. The Tribunal allowed the expenditure on gifts made to foreign collaborators, emphasizing that it was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The Tribunal relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court and allowed the expenditure of Rs. 58,405. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the gifts were given to maintain good business relations and were not for advertisement or publicity purposes. The expenditure was deemed allowable under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court declined to refer this issue as a question of law.

Issue 2: Reduction of value of presented articles as per rule 6B:
The Assessing Officer disallowed the excess expenditure on gifts as each item's cost exceeded Rs. 50, citing rule 6B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction up to Rs. 50 on each item of gift. The High Court declined to refer this issue as a question of law, as it was a factual matter based on the application of rule 6B.

Issue 3: Allowability of depreciation, additional depreciation, and investment allowance on expenditure incurred on foreign tour:
The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the foreign tour expenditure as capital expenditure. The Commissioner reduced the disallowance, distinguishing between expenditure related to existing business and expansion plans. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the claim for depreciation, etc., on the capital expenditure. The High Court held that no question of law arose, as the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further consideration. Additionally, any expenditure treated as capital expenditure would form part of the cost of plant and machinery, allowing depreciation and other benefits. The High Court rejected this issue as well.

In conclusion, the High Court rejected the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as no questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The judgment affirmed the Tribunal's decisions regarding the allowability of expenditure on gifts to foreign collaborators and the reduction of value of presented articles, while also addressing the treatment of expenditure on foreign tours as capital expenditure.