R.K. Swamy Advertising Associates (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Abdul Hadi, J.—This tax case by the assessee is under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961, and relates to the asst. yr. 1981-82. The question referred to us is as follows :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that computation of disallowance under r. 6D should not be restricted to the expenditure incurred during the period of travel alone ?"

But the question is not happily worded. After the word "incurred" in the abovesaid question, the expression "for travel alone" must be there, and not "during the period of travel alone". This is so because, the contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that hotel expenses during travel would not come under r. 6D at all, and only travel expenses would be covered under r. 6D.

There is absolutely no merit in the abovesaid contention. Not only the above referred to r. 6D of the IT Rules, 1962, but the enactment itself in s. 37(3) specifically says that notwithstanding s. 37(1) with reference to expenditure incurred in connection with "travelling by an employee (of the assessee) or any other person (including hotel expenses or allowances paid in connection with such travelling)" shall be allowed only to the extent prescribed. The abovesaid prescription is there in the above said r. 6D, which is also worded in the same way.

In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the assessee could not argue anything seriously contra. Accordingly, the question, as we have formulated above, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.