AGK AGK AGK 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.783 OF 1998 The Commissioner of Income-tax,.. Applicant. V/s. Kirloskar Consultants Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr.A.S. Rao i/b. Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for the applicant. Mr.A.K. Jasani with Mr.P. Vaidya for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & CORAM : V.C. DAGA & CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 5TH APRIL, 2005. DATED : 5TH APRIL, 2005. DATED : 5TH APRIL, 2005. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The Tribunal has referred the question for the opinion of this Court reading as under :- Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of sec.40(c) applies for determining the quantum of the disallowance out of the value of the perquisites paid by the assessee company to its managing director and not the provisions of section 40A(5) ? 2. The above question has already been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Hico Products Pvt.Ltd. (No.1) [(1993) 201 CIT V/s. Hico Products Pvt.Ltd. (No.1) [(1993) 201 CIT V/s. Hico Products Pvt.Ltd. (No.1) [(1993) 201 I.T.R. 567 (Bom)] I.T.R. 567 (Bom)] I.T.R. 567 (Bom)] in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In this view of the matter, question stands answered in affirmative for the reasons stated in the case of Hico Products (P) Ltd. Reference, accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. AGK AGK AGK 2 *********