https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16069 Binding precedent governed both tax questions discussed. The article notes that 100% deduction of the initial contribution to a superannuation fund was allowed notwithstanding the CBDT notification, because an earlier Bombay High Court decision had already settled the point in favour of the assessee. It also notes that remuneration and perquisites paid to employee-directors were to be disallowed under section 40(c), not section 40A(5), as earlier High Court and Supreme Court decisions had resolved that issue. Both questions were therefore treated as concluded in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:43:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16069 Binding precedent governed both tax questions discussed. The article notes that 100% deduction of the initial contribution to a superannuation fund was allowed notwithstanding the CBDT notification, because an earlier Bombay High Court decision had already settled the point in favour of the assessee. It also notes that remuneration and perquisites paid to employee-directors were to be disallowed under section 40(c), not section 40A(5), as earlier High Court and Supreme Court decisions had resolved that issue. Both questions were therefore treated as concluded in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16069