Cit Vs. Electra India Ltd.

counsels: shambhoo chopra, for the applicant amitabh agrawal & p.k. jain, for the respondent. head note: income tax business disallowance under section 40a(5)--additionremuneration paid in excess of prescribed limitsheld: tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of the amount made by ao which represented the value of perquisites provided to directors on ground that perquisites exceeded 1/5 th of salary paid to them. income tax act, 1961 s.40a(5)(c) in the allahabad high court r.k. agrawal & prakash krishna, jj. - indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadorderby the court the income tax appellate tribunal, delhi has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the income tax act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) for opinion to this court:'whether the tribunal was legally correct in deleting the addition of rs. 12,072 made by the inspecting asstt. commissioner in view of the provisions of section 40a(5)(c) of the income tax act, 1961.'2. briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:the reference relates to the assessment year 1982-83. the respondent-assessee is a private limited company. an addition of rs. 12,072 was made by the learned assessing officer which represented the value of perquisites provided to the three directors. the assessing officer was of the opinion that perquisites exceeded 1/5th of the salary paid to each one of them and therefore the excess was disallowed applying the provisions of section 40a(5)(c) of the act. the addition was deleted by the cit(a) which order has been upheld by the tribunal.3. we have heard shri sambhoo chopra, the learned standing counsel for the revenue and shri amitabh agrawal, holding brief of shri p.k. jain, advocate. it is agreed between the parties that the present reference is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of abbas wazir (p.) ltd. v. cit (2004) u.p. tax cases 275 which has been followed by this court in cit v. saru smelting (p.) ltd., (it reference no. 298 of 1983 dated 2-9-2003) wherein this court has answered the question in favour of assessee and against the revenue.4. respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this court we also answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the department. however, there shall be no order as to costs.