https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15905 The court held in favor of the assessee on both issues. Regarding the entitlement to a higher investment allowance, the court ruled that the requirement to submit the certificate along with the return of income was directory, not mandatory. Therefore, the assessee's submission of the certificate during assessment proceedings was acceptable. On the computation of disallowance for the employee-director's remuneration and perquisites, the court followed established precedent and held that it should be done under Section 40(c), not Section 40A(5). The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, answering both questions in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. en-us Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:19:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15905 The court held in favor of the assessee on both issues. Regarding the entitlement to a higher investment allowance, the court ruled that the requirement to submit the certificate along with the return of income was directory, not mandatory. Therefore, the assessee's submission of the certificate during assessment proceedings was acceptable. On the computation of disallowance for the employee-director's remuneration and perquisites, the court followed established precedent and held that it should be done under Section 40(c), not Section 40A(5). The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, answering both questions in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15905