M/S. JYOTI LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITR/2/1992HC GujaratGJHC24015353199214 December 2004Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by M/s. Jyoti Limited (the assessee) against The Commissioner of Income Tax (the revenue) before the High Court of Gujarat. The reference was raised by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', concerning assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1979-80, and 1980-81. The assessee sought to challenge the Tribunal's rulings on several questions of law. During the proceedings, the assessee, under instructions, withdrew its plea regarding expenditure related to the establishment of a Foundry at Halol for AY 1980-81, leaving that specific question unanswered. The court noted that the remaining four questions were concluded by decisions of the Apex Court and the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court addressed the referred questions based on existing judicial pronouncements. For the allowability of bank guarantee commission for A.Ys. 1976-77, 1977-78, 1979-80 and 1980-81, the Tribunal's decision was held to be in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, following the Apex Court's ruling in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Akkamamba Textiles Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 464. Regarding the applicability of Section 40(c) to commission paid to the Managing Director for A.Ys. 1976-77 to 1980-81, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, favouring the revenue and against the assessee, based on this Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohit Mills Ltd. (1996) 219 ITR 228. The expenditure on the issue of bonus shares for A.Y. 1977-78 was held not allowable as revenue expenditure, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, citing Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ambica Mills Ltd. (2000) 244 ITR 742. Similarly, expenditure on the issue of shares for A.Y. 1979-80 was held not allowable as revenue expenditure, favouring the revenue and against the assessee, as per the Apex Court's decision in Brooke Bond India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 225 ITR 798. The question concerning the Foundry at Halol for A.Y. 1980-81 was left unanswered as it was withdrawn by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was asked to decide five questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the bank guarantee commission payment to Industrial Development Bank of India under a deferred payment scheme was not allowable as revenue expenditure for A.Ys. 1976-77, 1977-78, 1979-80 & 1980-81? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that commission paid to the Managing Director was a part of remuneration for the purposes of applying the limit of Rs.72,000/- laid down u/s.40(c) of the I.T.Act for A.Ys. 1976-77 to 1980-81? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that expenditure incurred on the issue of bonus shares was not allowable as revenue expenditure for A.Y. 1977-78? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that expenditure incurred on the issue of shares was not allowable as a revenue expenditure for A.Y. 1979-80? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the establishment of a Foundry at Halol was not an expansion of the existing business but a new project and that expenditure on it was not allowable as revenue expenditure for A.Y. 1980-81? Assessee's contentions: The assessee did not press the issue related to the Foundry at Halol. For other issues, the assessee's arguments are not recorded as the court found them concluded by precedent. Revenue's contentions: The revenue's arguments are not recorded as the court found the issues concluded by precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 2 of 1992

For Approval and Signature:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tri

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 40(c)

All 46 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →