https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26458 The court held that the expenditure in relation to a director who was also an employee should be computed solely with reference to section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not section 40(c). The maximum allowable deduction was restricted by the limitations in section 40A(5)(a) and (c), with the permissible deduction for salary and perquisites limited to specific amounts. The court disagreed with a previous decision and ruled in favor of the Revenue, directing that the expenditure could only be allowed under section 40A(5), resulting in the parties bearing their respective costs. en-us Wed, 30 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:54:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26458 The court held that the expenditure in relation to a director who was also an employee should be computed solely with reference to section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and not section 40(c). The maximum allowable deduction was restricted by the limitations in section 40A(5)(a) and (c), with the permissible deduction for salary and perquisites limited to specific amounts. The court disagreed with a previous decision and ruled in favor of the Revenue, directing that the expenditure could only be allowed under section 40A(5), resulting in the parties bearing their respective costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Oct 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26458