https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36365 A payment made to the Textile Commissioner for non-production of controlled cloth was treated as business expenditure, not as a penalty, because it arose from the assessee's commercial operations under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order. In computing disallowance under section 40A(5), the first proviso to section 40A(5)(a) was held to create a special ceiling for company expenditure on specified employees, including relatives of directors, and to override the general computation rule within its field. The wider question whether the medical benefits constituted perquisites was therefore left unanswered. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:18:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36365 A payment made to the Textile Commissioner for non-production of controlled cloth was treated as business expenditure, not as a penalty, because it arose from the assessee's commercial operations under the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order. In computing disallowance under section 40A(5), the first proviso to section 40A(5)(a) was held to create a special ceiling for company expenditure on specified employees, including relatives of directors, and to override the general computation rule within its field. The wider question whether the medical benefits constituted perquisites was therefore left unanswered. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 10 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36365