https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22207 The Delhi High Court distinguished between a factual estimate and a referable legal question under the Income-tax Act. It held that the allocation of 35% of entertainment expenditure to Explanation 2 to Section 37(2A) depended on the factual breakup of expenses and the Tribunal's appraisal of the record, so no question of law arose on that point. By contrast, the treatment of house rent allowance and conveyance allowance paid in cash as salary, and reimbursement of medical expenses as neither salary nor perquisites, was treated as a legal issue capable of reference. The reference was therefore declined on the entertainment expenditure issue and directed on the allowances and medical reimbursement issue. en-us Thu, 15 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:59:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22207 The Delhi High Court distinguished between a factual estimate and a referable legal question under the Income-tax Act. It held that the allocation of 35% of entertainment expenditure to Explanation 2 to Section 37(2A) depended on the factual breakup of expenses and the Tribunal's appraisal of the record, so no question of law arose on that point. By contrast, the treatment of house rent allowance and conveyance allowance paid in cash as salary, and reimbursement of medical expenses as neither salary nor perquisites, was treated as a legal issue capable of reference. The reference was therefore declined on the entertainment expenditure issue and directed on the allowances and medical reimbursement issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22207