Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2015 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 760 - HC - Income TaxRent paid to P.S.I.D.C. for guest house - ITAT upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting addition - Held that:- Sections 37(4) and (5) of the Act are unambiguous in their intent and purpose that expenditure claimed by an assessee on account of guest house charges would not fall under Section 30 of the Act and therefore, cannot be allowed as a deduction. The Tribunal has, therefore, erred in deleting the addition made by the AO by relying upon Section 30 of the Act. The first question is, accordingly, answered in favour of the revenue by holding that payment of guest house charges cannot be allowed as a deduction. - Decided against assessee. Subscription paid directly in the form of cash - treatment as a perquisite in view of Section 40-A (5)(a) (ii) - Held that:- A due consideration of the facts reveals that subscription has been made to professional institutions and clubs. The subscription, therefore, cannot be treated as a perquisite under Section 40(A) (5a) of the Act. Reliance may be placed upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. (1992 (5) TMI 15 - DELHI High Court). - Decided against revenue. Extra shift allowance - ITAT allowing allowance on the basis of the concern as a whole working as an extra shift - Held that:- ITAT has relied upon a circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes while holding in favour of the assessee. A perusal of the judgment in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate's case (1981 (3) TMI 40 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court) reveals that it does not pertain to extra shift allowance and is, therefore, irrelevant. The question has even otherwise already been answered in favour of assessees by in South India Viscose Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997 (7) TMI 9 - SUPREME Court) - Decided against the revenue. Reduction of capital employed by proportionate liabilities in the new tractor division and the foundry division - Held that:- The controversy is covered against the revenue by circular No.380, dated 10.04.1984, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Vs. S. Rajagopalan ITO, (1973 (4) TMI 12 - BOMBAY High Court ). Counsel for the revenue is unable to raise any meaningful argument against the circular or the aforesaid judgment and had not been demonstrated that the borrowings made by the assessee travelled to the two units.- Decided against the revenue.
|