https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22991 HC held that expenditure on repairs of company-owned and leased residential flats used by employees is hit by the second limb of s. 40A(5)(a)(ii) and is disallowable beyond the prescribed limit, answering this issue in favour of Revenue. On surtax, HC interpreted "any tax" in s. 40(a)(ii) to include surtax as it is levied with reference to profits and gains of business; hence surtax liability is not deductible under s. 37. Regarding levy of interest under s. 215, HC found the assessee had not established any prima facie case against liability, given its own advance-tax and self-assessment payments, and upheld the levy of interest, again in favour of Revenue. en-us Wed, 11 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Dec 2025 18:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22991 HC held that expenditure on repairs of company-owned and leased residential flats used by employees is hit by the second limb of s. 40A(5)(a)(ii) and is disallowable beyond the prescribed limit, answering this issue in favour of Revenue. On surtax, HC interpreted "any tax" in s. 40(a)(ii) to include surtax as it is levied with reference to profits and gains of business; hence surtax liability is not deductible under s. 37. Regarding levy of interest under s. 215, HC found the assessee had not established any prima facie case against liability, given its own advance-tax and self-assessment payments, and upheld the levy of interest, again in favour of Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22991