Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

62. The scheme of s. 40 is that in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" among others, any expenditure incurred in making provision of any benefit or amenity or perquisite shall not be deducted, even if the provision for deduction of such sums is made under s. 30 to 39. This is because of the non obstante clause with which s. 40 opens. But the proviso to sub-clause (v) of s. 40(a) makes an exception and excludes expenditure incurred in making provision for any benefit or amenity or perquisite. In other words, if a case comes within the ambit of the proviso, any deduction permissible under ss. 30 to 39 shall have to be allowed. In other words, it shall be deducted in arriving at the profits and gains of business or profession chargeable to tax notwithstanding s. 40(a)(v). Though not directly in point, a somewhat similar question arose for consideration before the Bombay High Court reported in CIT v. Bai Navajbai N. Gamadia [1948] 16 ITR 109, viz., wherein an assessee created a revocable trust in respect of certain securities with the object of paying the income for charitable purposes and the income derived therefrom can be deemed to be the income of the assessee under s. 16(1)(c) of the 1922 Act. The court held that not only the income actually received but also what is deemed to have been received under the Act was included in s. 4(3) and, as such, the income derived from the securities was not liable to tax. That view was taken because of the definition of total income contained in s. 2(15) of the Act, which would, as a result of the exemption contained in s. 4(3), render the I.T. Act inapplicable to incomes enumerated in that sub-section. On the same parity of reasoning, if "salary" payable to foreign technicians is exempt from tax, any provision made for the benefit or amenity or perquisite in respect of such foreign technicians would be a deductible item in assessing the profits and gains from business of the assessee company. In our view, it would rather create an anomalous situation if it were held that while an income is exempt and is not chargeable to tax, perquisites payable would have to be taken into account and cannot be deducted for purposes of assessing the profits and gains of business of which such foreign technician is an employee. So long as salary in the hands of a foreign technician is exempt, it would be deductible expenditure for the assessee company which employs him; consequently, perquisites payable to such an employee would also be deductible in calculating the income from "profits and gains" of such company.