COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions have been referred to us by the Tribunal which read as under :

(2.) AS far as the first question of law referred to us is concerned, it is for the asst. yr. 1986-87. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee has submitted that the issue raised in the said question is liable to be answered in favour of the assessee, in view of the decision in the case of CIT vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons (1998) 148 CTR (Mad) 9 : (1999) 235 ITR 491 (Mad) wherein the Court has held that business expenditure incurred by the assessee on maintenance of the building cannot be treated as a perquisite within the meaning of S. 40(c) of the Act. Following the said decision, we answer the first question of law referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.