SHAMA MAGAZINE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under S. 256(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, at the instance of the assessee arising out of the asst. year 1975 -76 seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following question of law :

(2.) THE expenses in question were incurred by the partner of the firm. The Tribunal has disallowed the expenses which exceeded the ceiling prescribed by r. 6D of the IT Rules, 1962. The contention of the assessee was that the ceiling was not applicable to a partner himself incurring the expenses and the partner will not be covered by the expression "an employee or any other person". We do not see any reason to restrict the meaning of the expression "an employee or any other person" so as to exclude a partner therefrom. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Autofin Ltd. (1985) 46 CTR (AP) 258 : (1985) 151 ITR 741 (AP) has also interpreted the expression widely so as to include a director or the managing director of a company within the meaning of the expression. In our opinion, a partner of the firm has also to be included within the meaning of "any other person".