BEARDSELL LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following three questions have been referred to us, at the instance of the assessee. THEy arise out of the order of the Tribunal and relate to the assessment year 1980-81 :

(2.) COUNSEL submitted that similar questions had been referred to this court in respect of two earlier assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 though counsel is unable to furnish the numbers of those tax cases. Those references are now not before us, but the fact is that they are pending. COUNSEL also submitted that those two cases will come in the normal course for final disposal and the answer to be recorded on similar questions raised in this case will apply to those cases as well.

(3.) AS regards the third question it is also answered against the assessee. in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 644, wherein the Supremo Court held [he payment of cash allowances, even if it be as reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the assessee such as medical expenditure is not to be treated as perquisite but it should be treated as part of salary to which Section 40(c) of the Act would be applicable. That is what the Tribunal has held and we see no error in that finding.