1982 (8) TMI 88 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Disallowance under sections 40(c) and 40A(5) related to remuneration and perquisites paid to the Managing Director and employees.

Analysis:

1. Ground No. 1 in Appeal No. 574/Bom/81 (A.Y. 1975-76):
- The issue pertains to the disallowance under section 40(c) of remuneration paid to the Managing Director. The contention was that the remuneration was approved by the Central Government, hence not excessive. However, the Tribunal ruled that even if reasonable, the disallowance was limited to Rs. 72,000, following a prior Special Bench decision. The ground was decided against the assessee.

2. Ground No. 1 in Appeal No. 575/(Bom)/81 (Asst. yr. 1978-79):
- This ground involved two parts: excess remuneration to the Managing Director and commission paid. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under section 40(c) for both components, following the Special Bench decision. The argument that commission should not be disallowed was rejected, aligning with the prior ruling.

3. Ground No. 2 in Appeal No. 574/Bom/81(Asst 1975-76):
- The issue centered around the disallowance under section 40A(5) from the remuneration paid to employees. The dispute was whether the disallowance should be based on actual rent or perquisite value. The assessee argued for the latter, citing a Calcutta High Court ruling. However, the Tribunal favored the Madras High Court's view that the two determinations work on different planes. The ground was decided against the assessee.

4. Ground No. 2 in Appeal No. 575/(Bom)/81 (Asst. yr. 1978-79):
- Similar to the previous ground, this issue involved disallowance under section 40A(5) based on actual rent paid to an employee. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, following the same reasoning as in the prior year's assessment. The ground was decided against the assessee.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the disallowances made under sections 40(c) and 40A(5) for both the remuneration paid to the Managing Director and the employees. The Tribunal's decisions were based on prior judicial interpretations and the distinction between actual expenditure and perquisite value as per the Income Tax Act and Rules.