1. Dispute over allowability of bonus and provident fund contributions as deductions under the Excess Profits Tax Act where calculations excluded excess profits tax. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 120
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th May, 1959
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad, Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of excess Profits Tax, Bombay North, Kutch and Saurashtra, Baroda, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. A. Palkhiwala, Advocate, and Messrs. J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and co., for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, (Messrs. A. N. Kripal and D. Gupta, Advocates with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
A.N.KIRPAL, C.K.DAFTARY, D.GUTPA, J.B.DADACHAN, N.A.PALKHIWALA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, S.N.ANDLEY
A.N.KIRPAL, C.K.DAFTARY, D.GUTPA, J.B.DADACHAN, N.A.PALKHIWALA, RAJINDAR NARAIN, S.N.ANDLEY
The tax officer's statutory discretion to disallow unreasonable or unnecessary business expenses under Rule 12(1) of the First Schedule of the Excess Profits Tax Act is not overridden by a contractual obligation to pay bonuses.
Headnote:(A) Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 - Rule 12(1) of the First Schedule - Deduction of expenses - Bonus and Provident Fund contributions - Discretion of the tax officer to disallow expenses that are not reasonable and necessary for the requirements of the business - Even where there is a contractual obligation to pay a bonus, the tax officer is not precluded from exercising discretion under Rule 12(1) to disallow payments that are excessively high and not justified by business needs. (Paras 7, 16)
(B) Evidence - Finding of fact by the Tribunal - If there is material on record, such as comparative industry data and salary proportions, to show that payments are extraordinarily high, the conclusion that such payments are unreasonable is sustainable. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The assessee company paid bonuses to certain employees and contributions to the Provident Funds of others based on a percentage of profits. These calculations were made on profits before deducting excess profits tax. The tax officer disallowed the portion of these payments that exceeded the amount that would have been payable had the excess profits tax been deducted first, holding that such payments were not reasonable or necessary for the business under Rule 12(1) of the First Schedule of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the payments were extraordinarily high, with some bonuses and contributions being several times the annual salaries of the employees, and far exceeding the practices of other similarly situated concerns. The tax officer was justified in pruning these payments by insisting that the percentage be applied only after taxes were paid.
Issues: Whether a contractual obligation to pay a bonus precludes the tax officer from exercising discretion under Rule 12(1) of the First Schedule of the Excess Profits Tax Act to disallow unreasonable expenses, and whether the calculation of such bonus should be made after deducting excess profits tax.
Ratio Decidendi: The tax officer has the authority under Rule 12(1) to disallow expenses in excess of what is considered reasonable and necessary for the requirements of the business. A contractual obligation does not strip the officer of this statutory discretion. Where evidence demonstrates that payments are excessively high relative to business needs and industry standards, the officer may disallow the excess.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether contractual obligations to pay bonuses preclude the tax officer from exercising discretion to disallow excessive payments under Rule 12(1) of the First Schedule. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 )
3. Payments were extraordinarily high relative to salaries and industry standards, justifying the tax officer's decision to disallow the excess as unreasonable and unnecessary. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 )
4. Contractual obligations to pay bonuses do not preclude the tax officer from disallowing excessive payments deemed unreasonable or unnecessary for business requirements under Rule 12(1). (Para 16 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 18 )
6. Does a contractual obligation to pay a bonus prevent the EPT Officer from disallowing it under Rule 12(1)?
No, the EPT Officer can still exercise discretion under Rule 12(1) of the First Schedule to disallow expenses that are not reasonable or necessary for the business, regardless of the employer's obligation to pay. (Para 1 , 16 )
7. How is the reasonableness of bonus payments determined under the Excess Profits Tax Act?
Reasonableness can be determined by comparing the payments to industry standards and analyzing the proportion of bonus or contributions relative to the employees' annual salaries. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 )
8. Can the EPT Officer disallow a portion of a bonus by requiring the deduction of excess profits tax before calculating the percentage?
Yes, if the resulting payments are found to be unreasonable or unnecessarily large for the requirements of the business, the officer may insist on deducting taxes first to reduce the allowable amount. (Para 11 , 16 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This appeal by special leave of this Court, has been filed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated August 27, 1954, by the Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing co. Ltd., Ahmedabad, hereinafter called the assessee Company. By that judgment, the High Court of Bombay answered the first of the two following questions referred to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, in the negative, and declined to answer the second question, inasmuch as, in its opinion, that question did not arise in view of the answer to the first question:
1. "Whether in law, if there is an obligation on the employer to pay a certain bonus, the E. P. T. Officer is bound to allow it as a deduction and is precluded from exercising his discretion under Rule 12(1) of the First Schedule of the Excess Profits Tax Act.
2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative whether on a true construction of the agreement between the assessee and his employees and the Provident Fund Rules, the assessee Company is under obligation to pay the bonus without deducting the Excess Profits Tax."
2. The facts out of which the reference arose were as follows: The assessee Company is a limited liability Company, and is one of the well-known manufacturers of textile goods. We are concerned with three chargeable accounting periods corresponding to the Calendar years 1943, 1944 and 1945. While making the assessment of the assessee Company, the Excess Profits Tax Officer found that large payments had been made to five of the employees of the Company during the chargeable accounting periods. He also found that in the case of 53 employees of the assessee Company, excessive contributions had been made by the Company to their Provident Funds. These payments and contributions were on the basis of a percentage of the profits of the assessee Company made in the years of account. In determining the profits on which the said percentage was to be calculated, the assessee Company did not first deduct either the income-tax or the excess profits tax. The Income-tax Officer upheld the action of the assessee Company in not deducting the income-tax, but he objected to its not deducting the excess profits tax before calculating the amounts payable to the five employees and to the Provident Fund. The Excess Profits Tax Officer also held, applying R,. 12 of the First Schedule of the Excess Profits Tax Act, that it was not necessary for the assessee Company for the purpose of its business to make the calculations on the basis of net profits without the deduction of excess profits tax.
3. The appellate Tribunal also upheld the Excess Profits Tax Officer s decision. It, however, declined to state a case to the High Court of Bombay, and the assessee Company moved and obtained from the Bombay High Court a rule nisi, by which the High Court asked the Department to show cause why it should not state a case on the following two questions:
1. "Whether on a true and proper construction of the Provident Fund Rules and of the five agreements with the five officer employees, the amount of Excess Profits Tax determined to be payable should be deducted in the first instance for the purposes of determining the amount of bonus or commission payable to the said employees and the five officer employees.
2. Whether in the circumstances of the case the finding of the Tribunal that the full amount of commission or bonus paid to the employees of the Petitioners under the Provident Fund Rules and to the five officer employees under their respective agreements is not an allowable deduction in computing the taxable profits of the Petitioners for the purpose of Excess Profits Tax is justifiable in law."
4. It appears that when the rule nisi came to be heard, the High Court of Bombay accepted the contentions of counsel for the Department, and modified the questions to those which have been stated at the commencement of this judgment. We mention this fact, because
