1997 (12) TMI 53 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether reimbursement of medical expenses and house rent allowance paid to the managing director should be considered for disallowance under section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether cash payments like house rent allowance paid to an executive should be treated as salary for determining the ceiling under section 40A(5) of the Act.
3. Whether surtax payable is an allowable deduction in computing the total income under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:

1. The court addressed the first issue regarding the inclusion of reimbursement of medical expenses and house rent allowance for the managing director in the disallowance under section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. Referring to previous judgments, the court held that these amounts should indeed be considered for the purpose of determining the disallowance under section 40(c) of the Act. Citing precedents, the court affirmed that both house rent allowance and reimbursement of medical expenses are to be taken into account for this purpose. Therefore, the court answered the first question in the affirmative, against the assessee.

2. Moving on to the second issue, the court examined whether cash payments like house rent allowance paid to an executive should be regarded as salary for calculating the ceiling under section 40A(5) of the Act. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P.) Ltd., the court concluded that such cash payments are to be treated as part of the salary subject to the ceiling limit under section 40A of the Act. Consequently, the court answered the second question in the affirmative, against the assessee.

3. Lastly, the third issue involved the deductibility of surtax payable in computing the business income of the assessee. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT, establishing that surtax paid cannot be claimed as a deduction when calculating the business income under the Act. Following this precedent, the court answered the third question in the affirmative, against the assessee, thereby affirming that surtax payable is not an allowable deduction in determining the total income.