C.I.T.,BOMBAY CITY-III,BOMBAY vs. BRITISH BANK OF MIDDLE EAST

C.A. No.-000095-000095 - 1998Supreme Court30 August 2001Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA Y.K. SABHARWAL ASHOK BHAN8 pages
For Petitioner: SUSHMA SURIFor Respondent: RR-EX-PARTE
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, British Bank of the Middle East, a non-resident banking company, is in appeal before the Supreme Court concerning assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The Assessing Officer estimated the value of free cars provided to employees at 50% of running and maintenance expenses for disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the value of the perquisite should be as fixed by Rule 3(c) of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962. The High Court, following its earlier decision, upheld this view in favour of the assessee. The Revenue is in appeal against the High Court's order.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Section 40A(5) and Rule 3 operate in different fields and apply to different sets of assessees. Section 40A(5) deals with the computation of income under the head 'Profits and Gains of business or profession' and aims to curb extravagant expenditure by employers on employees, disallowing expenditure beyond prescribed limits. Rule 3, on the other hand, deals with the valuation of perquisites for computing the income of employees chargeable under the head 'Salaries'. The Court found that the High Courts of Calcutta and Bombay had not properly considered this distinction. Applying Rule 3 for determining the deduction in relation to the assessment of the employer would be doing violence to the legislative intent of Section 40A(5). The employer has incurred the expenditure and should be able to provide its figures; if not, it should be assessed realistically, not on the basis of Rule 3 which applies to the employee. The Court agreed with the Gujarat High Court's reasoning in CIT v. Rajesh Textiles Mills Ltd. (173 ITR 179). The appeal was allowed, and the question was answered in favour of the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, and on a correct interpretation of Section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 3(c) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the value of the free car provided to the employees for the purpose of working out the disallowance case of the employer (assessee company) should be the same as prescribed by Rule 3(c) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, in the case of the employee? Assessee's Contention (as inferred from High Court's reliance and Tribunal's order): The value of the perquisite of free cars provided to employees, for the purpose of disallowance under Section 40A(5), should be determined as per Rule 3(c) of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962. This view was supported by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Britannia Industries Co. Ltd. (135 ITR 35) and the Bombay High Court in Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (221 ITR 695). Revenue's Contention: Rule 3 has no applicability for determining the expenditure to be disallowed to an employer-assessee under Section 40A(5). Rule 3 is relevant only for computing the value of perquisite in the context of the employee's income from salary. The disallowance under Section 40A(5) should be worked out on an estimated basis if actual expenditure is not ascertainable, not by following Rule 3.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40A(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 95 of 1998 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-III, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: BRITISH BANK OF MIDDLE EAST DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/08/2001 BENCH: S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal & Ashok Bhan

JUDGMENT: Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.

The assessee is a non-resident banking company. In respect of assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 the assessing officer, for the purpose of working of the disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, estimated the value of the perquisite of free cars provided to the employees at 50% of the expenses of running and maintenance of the cars. On appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the value of perquisite of free cars provided to the employees is fixed by Rule 3(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and the same value should be taken to be the value of the perquisite of the free cars provided to the employees for the purpose of making the disallowance under Section 40A(5). In further appeal the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), in view of the decision of Calcutta High C

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 40A(5)

All 51 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →