2001 PLP 1241 (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1241 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 244 I T R 29 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha and R. C. Lahoti, JJ |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1241 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1241 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 244 I T R 29 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha and R. C. Lahoti, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1241 (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ranbir Chandra and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 18, 1989 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.Cs. Nos. l55 and 160 of 1989).
Perquisites to directors and employees
Insurance premia paid by company on behalf of employee-director
Whether could be disallowed under S. 40A(5) or 40(c) for assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 40, 40A &
256. Held, that the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the premia paid by the assessee on behalf of the employee-director formed part of "salary" and was allowable as deduction from computing the assessable income of the company and not "perquisite", disallowable under section 40(A)(5) or section 40(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 was a question of law which had to be referred to the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Held, that the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the premia paid by the assessee on behalf of the employee‑director formed part of "salary" and was allowable as deduction from computing the assessable income of the company and not "perquisite", disallowable under section 40(A)(5) or section 40(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1979‑80, 1980‑81 and 1981‑82 was a question of law which had to be referred to the High Court. Ranbir Chandra and B.K. Prasad, Advocates for Appellant. We are concerned with the assessment years 1979‑80 to 1981‑82, The question itself indicates the relevant facts. It reads thus: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the premia paid by the assessee on behalf of the employee- director formed part of 'salary' and allowable as deduction from computing the assessable income of the company and not 'perquisite', disallowable under section 40A(5) or 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1979‑80, 1980‑81 and 1981‑82?" The High Court declined to call .for a reference of this question, having regard to its earlier judgments, Out attention is drawn to the Provisions of section 40(a)(5) and Explanation 2(b) thereto where it is stated that the payment by an assessee of any sum, whether directly or through a fund, other than a recognised provident fund or an approved superannuation fund, to effect an assurance on the life of an employee or to effect a contract for an annuity is a perquisite. We think, in the circumstances, that a question of law does arise which should be considered by the High Court. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The question, quoted above shall be referred by the Tribunal to the High Court .for consideration, after drawing up a statement of case: No order as to costs. M.B.A./463/FC Appeals allowed.