https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24117 The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that section 40A(5) and clause (c) thereof apply to disallow expenditure by a company for an employee who is also a director. The Court aligned with the Kerala High Court's interpretation, contrary to the Gujarat High Court's view, determining that section 40A(5) is relevant in such cases. The Tribunal's decision was deemed incorrect, and the correct provision for disallowing such expenditure is section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No costs were awarded as no representation was made on behalf of the assessee. en-us Thu, 02 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:12:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24117 The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that section 40A(5) and clause (c) thereof apply to disallow expenditure by a company for an employee who is also a director. The Court aligned with the Kerala High Court's interpretation, contrary to the Gujarat High Court's view, determining that section 40A(5) is relevant in such cases. The Tribunal's decision was deemed incorrect, and the correct provision for disallowing such expenditure is section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No costs were awarded as no representation was made on behalf of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 02 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24117