IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 162 OF 1993 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay .. Applicant V/s. M/s. Polyolefine Industries Ltd., Bombay .. Respondent Mr. R.V. Desai with Ms. S.V. Bharucha and Mr. R. Ashokan for the Applicant None present for the Respondent CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22.02.2005 DATED : 22.02.2005 DATED : 22.02.2005 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant. In the above, only the question No. 1 has been referred, which reads as under:- 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the provisions of sec. 40(c) of the Income-tax Act will apply for the purpose of disallowance out of salary and perquisites of employee-directors? 2. The learned counsel for the Applicant states that the the decision in CIT v. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd. 2001 CIT v. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd. 2001 CIT v. Hico Products Pvt. Ltd. 2001 ITR 567 (Bom.) ITR 567 (Bom.) ITR 567 (Bom.), covers the above question. Hence, the question is answered in the affirmative, in in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)