TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred for our opinion:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the proceedings commenced under Section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act are valid" 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by learned counsel for the assessee that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 219 ITR 644, the questions that have been referred are now required to be answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 5. In Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 219 ITR 644, the question that aros....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imbursement fall outside the scope of Section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. We are in agreement with the view canvassed by learned counsel for the assessee. The use of the words "whether convertible into money or not" clearly relate to a benefit other than cash payment as held by the Supreme Court. Following Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 219 ITR 644, there is no doubt that both the questions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payable by the employee if it is not paid by the assessee. The payment by the assessee contemplated by these words is not evidently a payment to the employee but to a third party, no doubt, on account of the employee." 9. In the present case as well as in Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 219 ITR 644, the payment was made not to a third party but to an employee. The position would have....