T.D Sugla, J.:— There is only one question in this reference. That question is:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cash payments made by the assessee to its directors such as house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, furniture allowance, etc., should not be considered as “perquisites” within the meaning of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?”
2. Counsel are agreed that, in view of our court's judgment in the case of CIT v. Indokem Pvt. Ltd., [1981] 132 ITR 125, the question should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
3. The proceedings relate to the assessee's assessment for the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69.
4. The question is so answered.
5. No order as to costs.