- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rane (Madras) Ltd. v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax.
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Mishra, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
The assessee-company sought deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for a sum of Rs. 1,01,150 described as emoluments and perquisites paid to its managing director. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the amount in excess of Rs. 72,000, invoking the limit prescribed by section 40(c) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax confirmed that disallowance. The company appealed to the Tribunal, contending that various items (sitting fees, reimbursement of medical expenses, provision for personal accident benefit, insurance, etc.) qualified for deduction under section 37 and that the limitations under section 40(c)(i) and (ii) were not applicable to those payments. The Tribunal held that the maximum admissible expenditure in the case of a managing director was Rs. 72,000 per annum and disallowed amounts beyond that limit. The matter is before the court on a reference arising from that sequence of proceedings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the payments of Rs. 1,01,150 to the managing director (emoluments and perquisites) are deductible as business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act despite exceeding the statutory limit.
- Whether the statutory limitations under section 40(c) — specifically the sub-clauses referred to by the parties (section 40(c)(i) and (ii), and discussion of section 40(c)(iii) and section 40(a)(v) in authorities) — apply to the payments in question.
- How the phrases such as "benefit, amenity or perquisite" and the qualifier "whether convertible into money or not" should be interpreted for the purpose of applying section 40 (and related provisions) to cash and non-cash payments made to an employee (here, the managing director).
Arguments of the Parties
Assessee's Arguments
- The assessee-company submitted that the sum of Rs. 1,01,150 paid to the managing director constituted emoluments and perquisites deductible under section 37 as expenditure incurred for "Profits and gains of business or profession".
- The assessee contended that limitations under section 40(c)(i) and (ii) were not applicable to these payments.
- The assessee relied on the Calcutta High Court Bench decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 431 to argue that certain allowances paid in cash (overseas allowance, managing allowance, transport allowance) do not fall within "benefit, amenity or perquisite" under section 40(c)(iii) and thus are deductible under section 37.
Revenue / Tribunal's Position (as reflected in the opinion)
- The Income-tax Officer disallowed the portion of the payment that exceeded Rs. 72,000, relying on the statutory limit in section 40(c).
- The Commissioner confirmed the disallowance.
- The Tribunal affirmed that the maximum expenditure admissible for a managing director was Rs. 72,000 per annum and treated any excess as beyond the eligibility limit under section 37.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., [1979] 119 ITR 431 (Calcutta High Court) | Held that overseas allowance, managing allowance and transport allowance when paid in cash to employees did not fall within the expression "benefit, amenity or perquisite" under section 40(c)(iii), and therefore could be deductible under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". | The court found this decision of "not much help" to the assessee in the instant case because the instant payments could not be identified as falling under a head separate from "remuneration" payable under a contract of service; the Calcutta approach was distinguished and ultimately rejected as defeating the purpose of the legislation. |
| CIT v. Commonwealth Trust Ltd., [1982] 135 ITR 19 (Full Bench, Kerala High Court) | Interpreted the definition of "salary" (Fourth Schedule) and the meaning of "benefit, amenity or perquisite" for section 40(a)(v). Held that "salary" excludes allowances and perquisites other than dearness allowance and that the object of section 40(a)(v) is to limit employer's deduction for benefits to prevent siphoning off taxable profits; the phrase "whether convertible into money or not" does not restrict the term to exclude cash benefits. | The court expressly adopted and agreed with the Kerala Full Bench interpretation, describing its meaning as the correct reading and relying on it to reject the narrower Calcutta construction. |
| CIT v. Mysore Commercial Union Ltd., [1980] 126 ITR 340 (Karnataka High Court) | Considered the effect of the words "whether convertible into money or not" in construing "benefit, amenity or perquisite"; in earlier decisions this had been read to argue exclusion of cash benefits. | The opinion notes that this decision was among those that had given weight to the qualifier "whether convertible into money or not", but the present court declined to follow that restricted reading and preferred the Kerala High Court reasoning. |
| CIT v. Manjushree Plantations Ltd., [1980] 125 ITR 150 (Madras High Court) | Reached a conclusion aligned with the view that the phrase "whether convertible into money or not" affects the nature of "benefit, amenity or perquisite" (i.e., earlier decisions had read that to exclude certain cash payments). | The present court observed this earlier decision but did not adopt that narrower interpretation, instead following the Kerala Full Bench's broader construction. |
| CIT v. G. Venkata-raman, [1978] 111 ITR 444 (Madras High Court) | Addressed a related question under language materially different from the present statutory provision. | The opinion records that this decision could be explained away because the statutory language considered there was materially different; it was not treated as directly persuasive for the present construction. |
| Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. CIT, [1994] 205 ITR 200 (Gujarat High Court) | Supported the view that "remuneration" includes payments quantified in money and paid to a person for services or work; discussed later amendments and the scope of "remuneration". | The court noted that this case aligns with and supports the present court's rejection of the Calcutta approach and its acceptance of the broader interpretation that cash payments can fall within the class of benefits/remuneration subject to statutory limits. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded by examining the characterisation of the payments and the relevant statutory language and authorities. The key elements of its reasoning were:
- Identification problem: The court noted that the assessee and its counsel were unable to identify the head under which the managing director had been paid the contested amounts other than as payments under a contract of service, and thus as falling within the broad expression "remuneration". Because those payments could not be cleanly distinguished from remuneration, the Calcutta decision (which turned on treating certain cash allowances as not being "benefit, amenity or perquisite") could not be readily applied.
- Statutory context and purpose: The court accepted and adopted the reasoning of the Kerala Full Bench in CIT v. Commonwealth Trust Ltd., which explained the statutory scheme — especially the definition of "salary" (Fourth Schedule) and the operation of section 40(a)(v) — and concluded that allowances and perquisites are excluded from the term "salary" and that "benefit, amenity or perquisite" should be read to exhaustively cover advantages other than salary. The court emphasized the legislative purpose of preventing siphoning off taxable profits by limiting the employer's deduction for benefits in kind and in cash.
- Construction of the qualifier "whether convertible into money or not": The court rejected the approach that gives undue weight to those words to treat cash payments as automatically outside "benefit, amenity or perquisite". It reasoned that reading the qualifier to exclude cash would be irrational and would subvert the purpose of the statutory limits, because it would allow employers to convert benefits into cash to escape the restriction. Instead, the court held that "whether convertible into money or not" is properly read as indicating immateriality of convertibility and does not confine the term to non-cash advantages alone.
- Rejection of the narrower Calcutta reading and reliance on other authorities: The court explicitly disagreed with the Calcutta High Court's narrower construction and observed that such a construction would defeat the statute's objective. It noted that the Gujarat High Court (Alembic) also reached a view consonant with the broader reading and that the later statutory amendments and definitions support treating "remuneration" as including money-quantified payments.
- Conclusion: On the basis of the statutory context, purpose and prior full-bench authority (Kerala), the court concluded that the term "benefit, amenity or perquisite" can include cash payments and that the statutory limitations operate to restrict deductibility; hence the approach of the Calcutta Bench was not accepted.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court agreed with the Kerala Full Bench interpretation that the expression "benefit, amenity or perquisite" may include cash as well as non-cash benefits, and that the statutory limits (as considered in the authorities discussed, including provisions under section 40) are to be given effect; the narrower approach of the Calcutta High Court was not accepted. The reference was answered accordingly.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The court's reasoning supports the view that payments to the managing director that are characterised as benefits/amenities/perquisites or remuneration may be subject to the statutory limits and thus are not automatically deductible in excess of those limits. The Tribunal's application of a Rs. 72,000 cap for a managing director is consistent with the statutory limitation principle discussed by the court.
- No order as to costs was made.
- Broader precedent: The court expressly adopted the Kerala High Court's broader interpretation and aligned with the Gujarat High Court view; the opinion therefore reinforces those existing High Court interpretations. The decision does not purport to create a novel departure from those authorities but adopts and applies them to the matter before the court.
Note: This summary is strictly confined to the content and statements contained in the provided opinion. No facts or conclusions have been added beyond what the opinion itself states.
Mishra, J.:— The assessee-cpmpany has kept a dispute as to eligibility of certain payments in excess of me limit under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), alive on pleas which hardly require exercise of greater wisdom than ordinary for rejection. The company claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,01,150 being the emoluments and perquisites to the managing director should be deducted as expenditure falling under section 37 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure in excess of Rs. 72,000, the limit as per section 40(c) of the Act. The Commissioner confirmed the disallowance. The company preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and urged that though sitting fees, reimbursement of medical expenses, provision for personal accident benefit, insurance, etc., to the managing director qualified for deduction under section 37 of the Act as expenditure falling under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”, the limitations under section 40(c)(i) and (ii) are not applicable to it.
2. The Tribunal has said that the maximum expenditure admissible in the case of a managing director is Rs. 72,000 per annum and thus any amount in excess thereof was beyond the eligibility limit for deduction under section 37 of the Act.
3. Learned counsel for the assessee has brought to our notice a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd., [1979] 119 ITR 431, in which there is a discussion whether overseas allowance, managing allowance and transport allowance paid in cash to employees fall under the expression “benefit, amenity or perquisite” as under section 40(c)(iii) of the Act and held that these allowances when paid in cash to the employees did not fall within the expression “benefit, amenity or perquisite” under section 40(c)(iii) of the Act. Since, however, such allowances fall under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”, they were deductible in computing the business profits of the assessee-company.
4. The Calcutta judgment, however, is of not much help to the assessee in the instant case because it is not possible, and learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to do so before us, to identify the head under which the managing director has been paid the amounts aforementioned except as a payment under the contract of service and thus falling under the pervasive sweep of the expression “remuneration”. The Calcutta judgment is distinguishable because the learned judges who decided the case were fully conscious that originally the expression “remuneration” existed along with the expression “benefit” and “amenity” in section 40(c)(iii) of the Act, but later, the Legislature had removed the expression “remuneration” from sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of section 40 of the Act. The expression “remuneration”, however, was not removed from sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (c) of section 40 of the Act. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Commonwealth Trust Ltd., [1982] 135 ITR 19 has taken notice of the various provisions of the Act including sections 37 and 40 and the definition of the expression “salary” for the purposes of the Act and has said as follows (at page 26):
“The definition indicates that salary would include dearness allowance (if the terms of employment so provide), but all other allowances and perquisites stand excluded from the scope of the term ‘salary’. This gives a very clear concept of what is salary as defined in the Fourth Schedule. This definition is incorporated in section 40(a)(v) by reason of Explanation 2. Therefore, when the sub-clause uses the term ‘salary’, it has to be understood as excluding all allowances and perquisites other than dearness allowance. We find that the sub-clause uses the term ‘benefit, amenity or perquisite’ as opposed to salary evidently indicating that these together will exhaust what an employee obtains in return for his service. Evidently the object of section 40(a)(v) is to persuade the employer to set a limit on the extent of the benefits of any kind that could be extended to any employee by an employer. Of course, any employer is free to provide his employee with the salary agreed upon and also allowances, perquisites and such amenities as the parties may choose to stipulate by way of terms of employment. Though these will be expenses falling within section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act as expenditure incurred wholly for the purpose of the business, the employer's claim for deduction is subject to the limit specified in section 40(a)(v). This is so in order that the taxable profits may not be siphoned off. If the benefit, amenity or perquisite exceeds one-fifth of the salary or Rs. 1,000 per mensem, whichever is less, such excess over the one-fifth would not be treated as deductible expenditure with the result that despite such payment, the assessee will have to pay tax on it. That will affectively deter an assessee from paying anything in excess of one-fifth of the salary by way of benefits, perquisites and amenities, the object being that it is not possible to conceive any category of benefit — the term ‘benefit’ is used in a wider sense — accruing to an employee other than the salary outside the scope of the term ‘benefit, amenity or perquisite’. It is evident that the enumeration of benefit, amenity and perquisite is intended to cover exhaustively all that an employee may get in any form other than his salary. In other words, between salary on the one hand, and benefit, amenity or perquisite on the other whatever an employee would get from his employer in cash or kind or services must stand exhausted. It may not be necessary to consider whether an allowance paid by way of house rent allowance, falls within the term ‘perquisite’. It is sufficient for the purpose of this case to consider whether it would fall within the scope of the term ‘benefit, amenity or perquisite’, since, if it does, section 40(a)(v) would operate to restrict the claim for deduction in respect thereof. It is in that context and particularly keeping in mind the object of the provision that we have indicated that what the law purports to do is to limit what an employer can claim by way of deduction on account of payment to his employee by way of benefit, again in the extended sense of that term.
The only question before us is whether, despite the very clear indication by reason of the context cjf the provision in section 40(a)(v) that the term ‘benefit, amenity or perquisite’ must exhaust all advantages that an employee gets other than his salary, a different meaning should be given to this term because of the words ‘whether convertible into money or not’ following it. It is seen to have been argued, and successfully, in some cases that the words ‘whether convertible into money or not’ reflect on the nature of ‘benefit, amenity or perquisite’. Such a qualification is said to be inappropriate in the case of a cash benefit. In other words, cash cannot be qualified by the term ‘whether convertible into money or not’ and, therefore, whatever may be the natural meaning of the term ‘benefit, amenity or perquisite’, any advantage in terms of money which may fall normally within any one of these three must stand excluded. We notice that this argument succeeded before the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Mysore Commercial Union Ltd., [1980] 126 ITR 340, before the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., [1979] 119 ITR 431 and before the Madras High Court in CIT v. Manjushree Plantations Ltd., [1980] 125 ITR 150. Though reference is made by the counsel for the assessee to the decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. G. Venkata-raman, [1978] 111 ITR 444, that could easily be explained because the language of the section which the court considered in that case was materially different from what we are dealing with here.
We don't see any reason to give undue emphasis to the words ‘whether convertible into money or not’ so as to give a very restricted meaning to the term ‘benefit, amenity or perquisite’, a meaning which would not serve the evident purpose of the section. We say so because that would mean that any cash allowance paid by the employer to an employee of any sum whatsoever will be entitled to deduction despite section 40(a)(v) because the restriction is limited only to non-cash advantage given to the employee. Such a construction appears to us to be quite irrational defeating the very purpose of prescribing the limit under section 40(a)(v) so as to dissuade an employer from paying unduly large sums by way of benefit, amenity or perquisite. The statute itself lays down the permissible limit of deduction in respect of salary and that would be incomplete unless a permissible limit of deduction is laid down in respect of other benefits that are extended to “an employee. Though the words ‘whether convertible into money or not’ may at first sight appear to indicate that whatever is not convertible into money stands excluded from the scope of the term ‘benefit, amenity or perquisite’, that need not necessarily be so. The term ‘benefit, amenity or perquisite’ may take in any benefits in kind and in service and may take in also cash. ‘Whether convertible into money or not’ need not qualify the whole range. It only means that it is immaterial whether the benefit, perquisite or amenity may or may not be convertible into money. That would be immaterial. According to us, this would be the proper reading of the section.”
5. We are in complete agreement with the meaning as given by the Kerala High Court. It is not possible to accept the approach of the Calcutta High Court as the same will defeat the very purpose of the legislation, and give a free hand to the employer to show payments in cash to employees in the shape of various allowances and escape taxes. This also is the view of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. CIT, [1994] 205 ITR 200. The Gujarat High Court has also taken pains in the instant judgment to discuss the fact of the later amendments in the Act and finally has said that “remuneration” is the expression which would include that which is quantified in money and paid to a person for his services or work.
6. The reference is answered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert