| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 2960 2008 SLD 2960 (2008) 300 ITR 339 |
Allahabad High Court
I.T.R. NO. 226 OF 1984 AUGUST 30, 2007
PRAKASH KRISHNA AND BHARATI SAPRU, JJ.
R.K. Upadhyaya for the Applicant. Shubham Agarwal for the
Respondent
I.T.R. NO. 226 OF 1984 AUGUST 30, 2007
PRAKASH KRISHNA AND BHARATI SAPRU, JJ.
R.K. Upadhyaya for the Applicant. Shubham Agarwal for the
Respondent
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shivalik Drug
Law:
Section:
Section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Advertisement/Sales promotion expenses The phrase 'any other person' in sub-rule (2) to rule 6D would draw its colour from the preceding word namely, 'employee'. A trustee is not an employee of the trust or akin to an employee and, therefore, amounts paid by way of travelling allowance to the trustees by the assessee-trust would not be subject to the provisions of rule 6D. JUDGMENT This is an income-tax reference at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B, New Delhi, has referred the following question to this court for its opinion : "Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the amounts paid by way of travelling allowance to the trustees by the assessee-trust would not be subject to the provisions of rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules ?" The dispute relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee is a family trust deriving income from manufacture and sale of allopathic and ayurvedic medicines. During the relevant assessment year, it claimed deduction of Rs. 17,824 as travelling allowance expenses. The Income-tax Officer found that the travelling allowance claimed by the assessee was excessive. He invoked rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules and held that travelling allowance as per the aforesaid rule 6D was admissible to the extent of Rs. 29,965. However, in the first appeal as well as in the second appeal, it has been held that rule 6D of the Rules has no application to the facts of the present case. Heard Shri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned standing counsel for the parties and Shri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee and respondent. It was contended by learned counsel for the Department that the phrase "any other person" in sub-rule (2) of rule 6D is wide enough to include even the assessee also. He submits that in view of the said phrase, rule 6D(2) is already attracted. Shri Shubham Agarwal, on the other hand, submits that on a true and correct interpretation, the phrase "any other person" will include only such persons, who are akin to "an employee". Considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The question whether a restricted meaning to…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492