9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of sections 40A(5) and 40(c) regarding payments to managing director. 2. Treatment of expenditure on free samples supplied to doctors under section 37(3A). Issue 1: The case involved a private limited company where the managing director received salary and perquisites. The Income-tax Officer applied section 40A(5) to limit perquisites to 20% of salary. The Commissioner directed application of section 40(c) based on a precedent. The Tribunal upheld this decision citing a similar case law. The court agreed with the Tribunal's view, stating that section 40(c) should apply in this scenario, as per the precedent, thus ruling in favor of the assessee. Issue 2: The assessee distributed samples to doctors for testing drugs. The Income-tax Officer treated the sample value as advertisement expenditure under section 37(3A). The Commissioner disagreed, stating the samples were not for advertisement. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, considering the samples essential for testing drug efficacy. The Revenue challenged this decision, citing a similar case. The court referenced a previous case involving distribution of notebooks and gift coupons, ruling that essential business expenditure does not fall under section 37(3A). As the samples were crucial for testing drug efficacy, they were deemed essential business expenditure, thus excluding them from section 37(3A) disallowance. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
|
