TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revenue, i.e. in the negative - - - - - Dated:- 29-3-2006 - Judge(s) : J. M. PANCHAL., BANKIM N. MEHTA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by J. M. PANCHAL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. "(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 62,056 being technical service fees paid to Mettur Beardsell Ltd.? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the leave travel concession and medical insurance premium in computing the disallowance under section 40(c)?" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a period of eight years and it was terminable merely on six months' prior notice which could be given by either party. The Tribunal held that the royalty paid for user of the trade mark constituted revenue expenditure. In the reference, this court noticed that the assessee was carrying on the business of manufacturing cloth and the process employed under the trade name "Tebilized" conferred an anti-crease property on the cloth. It was also noticed that the assessee entered into the agreements in question dated September 30, 1972, for the purpose of enabling it to carry on its business more efficiently and more profitably, while leaving the fixed capital untouched. The High Court, therefore, held that the agreement permitting the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 40(c), would depend upon the nature of the policy, who had taken it out and whose obligation it was to pay the premium. If the intention of the company by taking out such policies for insuring directors against personal accident was in fact to insure itself in respect of the liability that may arise towards the director as a result of an accident, then that situation would be different from a director himself taking out a personal accident insurance policy under which he would be obliged to pay the premium and not the company. If such premiums are reimbursed to the director, which is an obligation of the director himself to pay and not that of the company, qua the insurance company, then that would amount to a benefit to the director w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
