Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Severance Pay Amortization Case. ITAT's order allowing amortization of severance pay under Section 35DDA of Income Tax Act, 1961 upheld despite cessation of business.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 192
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Mumbai appealed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 5th September 2011, which allowed the assessee, M/s Diageo India Pvt. Ltd., to deduct amounts paid as severance pay to its employees. The assessee had transferred its domestic whisky business, including its manufacturing facility at Nira, Pune, to UDV India Ltd. and paid Rs.39,66,774/- as severance pay to employees. The Assessing Officer initially held that the deduction could not be claimed under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was akin to a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), and therefore only 1/5th of the amount could be deducted in the current assessment year under section 35DDA. The ITAT, however, allowed the full deduction under section 35DDA, holding that the amount could be amortized. The Revenue appealed, arguing that since the assessee had stopped its manufacturing activity, it was not entitled to the deduction. The High Court framed the substantial question of law as whether the ITAT erred in holding that the severance pay could be amortized under section 35DDA. The court noted that the ITAT had correctly applied section 35DDA, as the severance pay was akin to a VRS and the cessation of business did not bar amortization. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the ITAT's order.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Severance Pay - Amortization under Section 35DDA - The issue was whether severance pay paid to employees upon transfer of business could be amortized under section 35DDA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that the ITAT correctly applied section 35DDA, as the severance pay was akin to a voluntary retirement scheme and the cessation of business did not preclude amortization. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the amount paid on account of severance pay is allowed to be amortized under section 35DDA of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the ITAT did not err in allowing amortization of severance pay under section 35DDA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Law Points

  • Severance pay akin to VRS
  • amortization under section 35DDA
  • cessation of business not a bar
  • section 37(1) not applicable
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (07) 97

Income Tax Appeal No.403 of 2012

2014-07-09

S.C. Dharmadhikari, B.P. Colabawalla

Mr Tejveer Singh for Appellant, Mr Girish Dave with Ms Kadambari Dave i/b Mr A.K. Jasani for Respondent

The Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Mumbai

M/s Diageo India Pvt.Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Income Tax Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of ITAT allowing deduction of severance pay.

Remedy Sought

The Revenue sought to set aside the ITAT order and restore the Assessing Officer's decision disallowing full deduction of severance pay.

Filing Reason

The Revenue was aggrieved by the ITAT's order allowing amortization of severance pay under section 35DDA.

Previous Decisions

The Assessing Officer disallowed full deduction under section 37(1) and allowed only 1/5th under section 35DDA. The ITAT allowed full deduction under section 35DDA.

Issues

Whether the amount paid on account of severance pay is allowed to be amortized under section 35DDA of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the assessee had stopped its manufacturing activity and therefore was not entitled to deduction of severance pay. The Respondent contended that the ITAT correctly applied section 35DDA.

Ratio Decidendi

Severance pay paid to employees upon transfer of business is akin to a voluntary retirement scheme and can be amortized under section 35DDA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even if the business has ceased.

Judgment Excerpts

The ITAT took the view that though the Assessee was not entitled to claim the said deduction under section 37(1), it could be amortized under the provisions of section 35DDA of the Act.

Procedural History

The assessee filed return on 1st November 2004. The Assessing Officer passed order on 29th December 2006 under section 143(3). The ITAT allowed the appeal on 5th September 2011. The Revenue filed the present appeal under section 260A.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 260A, 37(1), 35DDA, 143(1), 143(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Second Appeal in Property Dispute — Sale Deed Found Genuine and Binding on Defendants. Court upholds concurrent findings of fact that the sale deed executed by husband of first defendant for family necessity was valid and t...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Severance Pay Amortization Case. ITAT's order allowing amortization of severance pay under Section 35DDA of Income Tax Act, 1961 upheld despite cessation of business.