Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS Respondent: INDIAN LEAF SPRING MANUFACTURING (P.) LTD
Court Name: Supreme Court of India Judge(s): S. P. Bharucha, R. C. Lahoti Title:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs INDIAN LEAF SPRING MANUFACTURING (P.)
LTD Case No.: Civil Appeals Nos. 6241 and 6242 of 1995 Date of Judgment:1999-03-18 Reported As: 2001 PTD 1241 Result: Appeals allowed Judgment ORDER We are concerned with the assessm ent 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 assessm ent 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. Our 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 oaf 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. .