9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether payments for medical and accident insurance premiums are included in the disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Act? 2. Whether a specific payment is allowable as a deduction? 3. Whether the disallowance under section 40(c) for remuneration paid to the managing director is valid? 4. Whether commission should be included in the disallowance under section 40(c)? 5. Whether the disallowance under section 37(5) for maintenance expenses is justified? 6. Whether bank guarantee commission is an expenditure of capital nature? 7. Whether expenditure incurred for amalgamation proceedings is deductible? Analysis: 1. The first issue involves whether payments for medical and accident insurance premiums should be included in the disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Act. The court referred to a previous case and concluded that such payments are not liable for inclusion in the disallowance, ruling in favor of the assessee against the Revenue. 2. The second issue pertains to the allowability of a specific payment as a deduction. The court cited a previous decision and held that the payment in question is considered revenue expenditure, thereby allowing it as a deduction in favor of the assessee against the Revenue. 3. The third issue addresses the validity of the disallowance under section 40(c) for remuneration paid to the managing director. The court found in favor of the Revenue, stating that the disallowance is required despite the reasonableness of the remuneration based on business requirements, as per a previous decision. 4. The fourth issue concerns whether commission should be included in the disallowance under section 40(c). The court determined that commission should indeed be included in the disallowance, aligning with a previous decision in favor of the Revenue against the assessee. 5. The fifth issue involves the justification of the disallowance under section 37(5) for maintenance expenses. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the expenses incurred for maintaining a house in Bombay were legitimate as they were used for accommodating officers and executives on official business. 6. The sixth issue revolves around whether bank guarantee commission constitutes an expenditure of capital nature. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, citing a decision that guarantee commission given to a bank is considered revenue expenditure, thus not of capital nature. 7. The seventh issue questions the deductibility of expenditure incurred for amalgamation proceedings. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the expenses related to the amalgamation proceedings were deductible as revenue expenditure, based on a previous decision and the nature of the expenses incurred. In conclusion, the court provided detailed analyses for each issue raised, citing relevant legal precedents to support their decisions and ultimately disposing of the reference with no order as to costs.
|
