Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AMALGAMATIONS LTD. VS Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Court Name: Madras High Court Judge(s): N. V. Balasubramanian, Adul Hadi Title: AMALGAMATIONS LTD. vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Case No.: Cases Nos.419, 420, 421, 422, 423 and 424 of 1984 Date of Judgment:2000-01-27 Reported As: 2000 PTD 2028 Result: Reference answered
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.---At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common questions of law for the opinion of this Court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the remuneration paid to W.A. Watts E.O., Austin and others is not allowable as a business expenditure? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the pension paid to Mrs. Valli Anantharamakrishnan is not an allowable deduction?" The assessm ent years involved in these tax cases are 1963-64 to 1968-69. In so far as the first question is concerned, the Appellate Tribunal has followed the decision of this High Court in the assessee's own case reported in CIT v. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 895 and has held that the special remuneration paid to W.A. Watts, E.O., Austin and others was not allowable as a deduction. Mr. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee, has fairly conceded that the decision of this Court in CIT v. Amalgamations (P.) Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 895 would fully govern and apply to the facts of this case. Following the decision of this Court reported in CIT v. Amalgamtions (P.) Ltd. (1977) 108 ITR 895, we answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. Accordingly, we answer both the questions of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee.