TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e following two questions to this High Court for its opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : "1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that section 43B cannot be applied to the amount of Rs. 9,68,948 being unpaid sales tax? 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that personal accident insurance premium can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred, then it would be treated as actually paid. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Chandulal Venichand [1994] 209 ITR 7, was approved by the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operate against the assessee. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered accordingly in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. The second question relates to the payment of insurance premium by the company for its director for whom personal accident insurance policy was taken out. Both the sides had taken sufficient time to produce a copy of the policy, but they have said that no such policy is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay and not that of the company qua the insurance company, then that would amount to benefit to the director. The Tribunal has applied the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Lala Shri Dhar [1972] 84 ITR 192, for allowing expenditure of insurance premium on the footing that the facts of the present case is regards the nature of the insurance policy were similar. In Lala Shri Dhar's case [19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
