9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions to this court for its opinion : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the provisions of section 40(c) and not section 40A(5) are applicable to the case of a director-employee of an assessee-company? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-company was irrelevant ? (5) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that once the payment to the director was found to be reasonable, the limit of Rs. 72,000 for allowing expenditure did not apply ? (6) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly disallowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the case of the assessee was governed under section 40(c) or section 40A(5) of the Act. One of the questions raised before the authorities below also was, as to whether the payment of gratuity was covered under section 40(c) or under section 40A(5) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in the second appeal being order dated April 20, 1981, this reference is made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reference No. 212 of 1982 (CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 770). Following the ratio of the said decision, we answer question No. 3 as under : " The expenditure incurred by the assessee on payment of retirement gratuity to Mr. V. P. Kamat in the sum of Rs. 67,500 is not includible under either of the provisions, i.e., section 40(c) or section 40A(5) of the Act. The sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
