SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 539

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, M.K.MUKHERJEE
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay – Appellant
Versus
Mafatlal Gangabhai And Company LTD. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition.

2. The only question in this batch of appeals is whether the payments made in cash by an assessee to its employees are within the mischief of Section 40(a)(v) and Section 40-A(5). Sub-clause (v) was inserted in clause (a) of Section 40 by the Finance Act, 1968 with effect from April 1, 1969. Section 40(a)(v) reads as follows :

"Section 40. Amounts not deductible.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in (sections 30 to 38), the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",-

(a) in the case of any assessee-

(v) any expenditure which results directly or indirectly in the provision of any benefit or amenity or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, to any employee (including any sum paid by the assessee in respect of any obligation which but for such payment would have been payable by such employee) or any expenditure or allowance in respect of any assets of the assessee used by such employee either wholly or partly for his own purposes or benefit, to the extent such expenditure or allowance exceeds one-fifth o

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top