Itr/58/2000 Of Yrs.season Rubbers v. Commissioner Of Incometax, Tvm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 ITR.No. 58 of 2000() --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN ITA.245/COH/92 IN RA.258/COCH//1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPLICANT: ------------------ M/S.SEASON RUBBER LTD.,KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN RAMESH K.I.JOHN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, TRIVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS TAX REFERENCE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. Ramachandran Nair &T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.R.NO.58 of 2000 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15[th] day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Contribution made by the assessee totaling Rs.16,500/- to a schooland to a hospital development committee were claimed for benefit underSection 80G of the Income Tax Act. However, since the recipients did nothave registration and could not issue certificate under Section 80G of theAct, the assessee shifted the stand and claimed the contributions as businessexpenditure eligible for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. TheTribunal declined the claim, against which this reference is sought by theassessee. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned StandingCounsel for the respondent. We do not think that the assessee is entitled tothe claim under Section 37(1) of the Act, because the assessee's businessprospects are not advanced by making these contributions. Even thoughlearned counsel contended that the assessee's employees are gettingtreatment from the hospital and the employees' children are students in theschool which got the benefit, we find the benefit, if at all, is quite remote ITR 58/2000 -2- and not to any person. We, therefore, answer the question referred, against the assessee and in favour of the department. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ ITR 58/2000 -3- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & &T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I.T.R. No.58 of 2000- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 15[th] January, 2008.