Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/s Hero Cycles Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0202-3]

Citation 2015-LL-0202-3
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana
Respondent Name M/s Hero Cycles Ltd
Court HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 02/02/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags medical reimbursement • medical expenses • business tour • substantial question law
Bot Summary: HEMANT GUPTA, J. The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 12.05.1998 relating to the assessment year 1988-89. The Revenue - appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that Disallowance of Medical expenses of a Director of the Assessee Company was not covered U/s 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, without answering the question as to whether reimbursement of medical expenses is part of salary. In view of the said decision, the first substantial question of law does not arise for consideration and is answered against the Revenue. We find that even the second substantial question of law again does not arise for consideration of this Court. The Tribunal has returned a finding of fact that the accompanying wife of the Director was part of their business tour. Since the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the wives of the Directors had accompanied their husbands on business tour such finding of fact does give rise to any substantial question of law. While answering both the substantial questions of law in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the Revenue-appellant, the present appeal is dismissed.


IN HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 02.02.2015 I.T.A.No.54 of 1999 Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus M/s Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporters or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Present : Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate, for appellant. Mr. Aalok Mittal, Advocate, for respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Revenue is in appeal under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act ) aggrieved against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short Tribunal ) on 12.05.1998 relating to assessment year 1988-89. Revenue - appellant has raised following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT was right in holding that Disallowance of Medical expenses of Director of Assessee Company was not covered U/s 40A(5) of Income Tax Act, without answering question as to whether reimbursement of medical expenses is part of salary. (2) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, ITAT was right in law in deleting Disallowance of Camp Office expenses of Rs.73694/- without there being any evidence on record that Directors' Wives accompanying their husbands on business tours had any participative role? VIMAL KUMAR 2015.02.06 15:48 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh ITA No.54 of 1999 2 In respect of first substantial question of law, learned counsel for respondent-assessee relies upon judgment of this Court in Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 175 Taxman 533, wherein it has been held that medical reimbursement expenses are part of salary covered under Section 40A(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of said decision, first substantial question of law does not arise for consideration and is answered against Revenue. Learned counsel for appellant relies upon judgments of Kerala High Court as well as Bombay High Court, reported as Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (2003) 261 ITR 390 and Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Bhor Industries P. Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 319 respectively to contend that travelling expenses of Directors' wives would be admissible if it is for business purposes. We find that even second substantial question of law again does not arise for consideration of this Court. Tribunal has returned finding of fact that accompanying wife of Director was part of their business tour. Since Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that wives of Directors had accompanied their husbands on business tour, therefore, such finding of fact does give rise to any substantial question of law. Consequently, while answering both substantial questions of law in favour of respondent-assessee and against Revenue-appellant, present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 02.02.2015 (HARI PAL VERMA) Anjal/Vimal JUDGE VIMAL KUMAR 2015.02.06 15:48 I attest to accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana v. M/s Hero Cycles Ltd
Report Error