|COURT:||Bombay High Court|
|CORAM:||B. P. Colabawalla J, S. C. Dharmadhikari J|
|CATCH WORDS:||other place of their work|
|COUNSEL:||J. D. Mistry|
|DATE:||July 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||October 10, 2014 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|The key word in Explanation is “work”. There could be a scenario where in the given set of facts and circumstances it could be validly contended that a hotel was a place of the work of the employees of the Assessee Company|
Whether expenses incurred in a hotel would fall within “or other place of their work” appearing in Explanation 2 to Section 37(2A) of the Act, would entirely depend on the facts of each case. There cannot be any generalization in this regard. The key word in Explanation is “work”. There could be a scenario where in the given set of facts and circumstances it could be validly contended that a hotel was a place of the work of the employees of the Assessee Company, but the same has to be examined on a case to case basis. In the present case, the factual findings given by the authorities below and as can be discerned from paragraph Nos.12 to 14 of the Tribunal’s Order, are against the Applicant/Assessee. Nothing has been brought to our notice to controvert those findings or to show that they are perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. It can hardly be argued that by the employees accompanying their customers for lunches and dinner, they were engaged in work and would therefore fall within “other place of their work” as contemplated in the said Explanation. In view of these factual findings of the authorities below, which are uncontroverted before us, we answer Question Nos.14 to 19 in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee.
Today marketing is developing desire of customers to convert their desire into a demand. and when demand is to be cnverted actual buying leads to all lunches in hotels depending on status of customers, after all business needs to survive. Without businesses how a company can run? if business is closed a lot of employees could be thrown out of jobs.
purpose of governance is to grow more and more job opportunities that is called welfare State.
Just for taxing by State, it should not misdirect itself from very purpose of sovereign responsibilities.
Again see how hotel industry would survive if such lunches and dinners are not offered to customers. If hotels get closed for want of business naturally many unemployment surge or arise by way of retrenchments and also new recruitment(s) might not take place. then you will cut down all expenses that means recession that might lead to depression. is that the aim of State will be the question that would arise.
i feel advocates did not properly argue on laws and society, that led to this decision, Laws does nt mean bereft of social norms pls1
today marketing includes all kinds of persuation of customers