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

1992 Supreme(Cal) 136

A.K.SENGUPTA, BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE
I. E. L. LTD. (SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CRESCENT DYES CHEMICALS LTD. ) – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Respondent


AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, atthe instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has sought for our opinion on the following question :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that reimbursements of medical expenses and house rent allowance paid in cash were to be taken as part of salary for purposes of Section 40a (5)/40 (c) of the Act?"

( 2 ) THIS reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83 for which the previous year ended on September 30, 1981. The Income-tax Officer, while computing the inadmissible expenditure under Section 40a (5)/40 (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, held that medical reimbursement and house rent allowance paid in cash would form part of salary under Section 17. Accordingly, both these payments were considered for computation of disallowance under Section 40a (5)/40 (c ).

( 3 ) ON appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer.

( 4 ) IN further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal, following the reasoning given by the Special Bench of the Tribu


























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