1984 (6) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or three other questions to be referred, the Tribunal thought it fit to refer only the above question. We have no information whether any application under s. 256(2) has been made by the Department with respect to the refusal of the Tribunal to refer other questions and if so what the position is. In the circumstances, we have no option but to proceed to deal with and answer the question referred to us. This matter came up for hearing on June 20, 1984, and after having been heard partly, we adjourned the case for today, because the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee was not present and also because of the standing counsel's request for time for ascertaining the above facts. Today, at 10-30 a.m., Mr. A. V. S. Ramakrishnaiah appear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be an employee. The ceiling prescribed by sub-r. (2) applies not only in the case of an " employee " but also in the case of " any other person ". Sub-r. (2), in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows: " The allowance in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in connection with travelling by an employee or any other person within India outside the headquarters of such employee or other person for the purposes of the business or profession of the assessee shall not exceed the aggregate of the amounts computed as hereunder: ........ There can be little doubt that a managing director falls within the meaning of the expression " any other person " used in the sub-rule. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the ITO was right in d....