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

1991 Supreme(SC) 425

N.D.OJHA, S.RANGANATHAN, V.RAMASWAMI
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay – Appellant
Versus
Imperial Surgical Company Private LTD. – Respondent


(1) THIS is an appeal from an order of the High court of Bombay declining to direct the tribunal to state a case for its decision under the Income Tax Act.

(2) THE respondent-assessee Company paid seven of its employees, in addition to what was described as their salary, certain amounts of bonus, commission and house rent allowance. Treating these items as perquisites within the meaning of Section 40(a)(v), the Income Tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 47,440.00. This was held to be the amount in excess of 20 per cent of their salary.

(3) THE Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, allowed the appeal and on further appeal by the department the tribunal confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Though the tribunal observed in general that these items could not be treated as benefits or perquisites because they represented cash payments made by the company, it also found as a fact that the payments had been made in pursuance of resolutions of the Company and in accordance with the terms of employment of the employees in question.

(4) THE appellant applied to the tribunal for referring a question of law to the High court but the tribunal dismi


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