Commissioner of Income Tax vs Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

By this reference u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has, at the instance of the Revenue, referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that notwithstanding the notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes the assessee is entitled to deduction of 100 per cent. of the initial contribution to the superannuation fund ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to apply the provisions of section 40(c) instead of section 40A(5) for working out the disallowances out of the remuneration and perquisites paid to the employee directors ?"

Counsel for the Revenue submits that the controversy in the first question now stands concluded in favour, of the assessee by the decision of this court in CIT v. Mahindra Sintared Products Ltd. (1993 289 ITR 1980 dated June 14, 1993), and following the same question No. 1 should be answered in favour of the assessee.

Counsel for the Revenue further submits that the controversy in question No. 2 also stands concluded in favour of the assessee by the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hico Products (P.) Ltd., and by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. M/s. Indian Engineering and Commercial Corporation Pvt. Ltd., , and following the same, it should be answered in favour of the assessee.

In view of the above statement, both the questions referred to us are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Reference disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.