Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
CIT vs. Rupam Pictures Pvt. Ltd.; 374 ITR 450 (Bom)
The assessee was in the business of production of films. In the A. Y. 1981-82, two directors of the assessee company were paid Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 1.5 lakh, respectively for directing and producing a film. The Assessing Officer applied section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and disallowed the payment in excess of Rs. 72,000/- in respect of each of them. The Tribunal deleted the addition.
On appeal by the Revenue, the Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) The disallowance made by the Income-tax Officer u/s. 40(c) was not justified. The amounts paid to the two individuals were not paid in their capacity as members of the Board of Directors but as professional charges for directing and producing a film.
ii) The Revenue was, therefore, not justified in disallowing the claim, the character of remuneration mode being different.”