https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27504 The court declined to answer the question regarding the chargeability of interest u/s 216 for the assessment year 1972-73, leaving it open for the Tribunal to reconsider. Regarding the issue of car allowance as a perquisite u/s 40A(5), the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the car allowance falls under the payment of salary and is within the prescribed limit. Additionally, the court held that marriage allowance should not be considered a perquisite for computing disallowance u/s 40A(5), favoring the assessee over the Revenue. The court ordered parties to bear their respective costs and sent a copy of the judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. en-us Fri, 27 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27504 The court declined to answer the question regarding the chargeability of interest u/s 216 for the assessment year 1972-73, leaving it open for the Tribunal to reconsider. Regarding the issue of car allowance as a perquisite u/s 40A(5), the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the car allowance falls under the payment of salary and is within the prescribed limit. Additionally, the court held that marriage allowance should not be considered a perquisite for computing disallowance u/s 40A(5), favoring the assessee over the Revenue. The court ordered parties to bear their respective costs and sent a copy of the judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27504