https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6036 The Supreme Court held that Rule 3(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, should not be applied to determine the disallowance under Section 40A(5) in the employer's assessment. The Court emphasized that Section 40A(5) and Rule 3 serve different purposes and apply to different categories of taxpayers. The judgment favored the Revenue, setting aside the Bombay High Court's decision. The Court appreciated the assistance of Mr. B. Sen, senior advocate, as amicus curiae, and no costs were awarded. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6036 The Supreme Court held that Rule 3(c) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, should not be applied to determine the disallowance under Section 40A(5) in the employer's assessment. The Court emphasized that Section 40A(5) and Rule 3 serve different purposes and apply to different categories of taxpayers. The judgment favored the Revenue, setting aside the Bombay High Court's decision. The Court appreciated the assistance of Mr. B. Sen, senior advocate, as amicus curiae, and no costs were awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6036