https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27419 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, denying the deduction for compensation paid to directors for loss of office as it was not solely for business purposes. The court held that the payment did not qualify as an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Act. The court also addressed the treatment of marriage allowance as part of salary, ruling in favor of the assessee, while considering car allowance as not a perquisite. However, the court sided with the Revenue in treating bungalow maintenance expenditure and depreciation as a perquisite for computing disallowance under the Income Tax Act. en-us Fri, 31 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:37:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27419 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, denying the deduction for compensation paid to directors for loss of office as it was not solely for business purposes. The court held that the payment did not qualify as an allowable deduction under the Income Tax Act. The court also addressed the treatment of marriage allowance as part of salary, ruling in favor of the assessee, while considering car allowance as not a perquisite. However, the court sided with the Revenue in treating bungalow maintenance expenditure and depreciation as a perquisite for computing disallowance under the Income Tax Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 31 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27419