revenue is aggrieved against order of Commissioner (Appeals). 2 to 4. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues]. 5. assessee-company had paid salary of Rs. 48,000 to two directors and perquisites in shape of house rent and water, gas and electricity totalled Rs. 24,322. said payment was in cash. ITO allowed Rs. 9,600 being one-fifth-of salary of Rs. 48,000 and disallowed balance of Rs. 14,722. 6. Commissioner (Appeals) following Bombay Special Bench decision in ITO v. Sapt Textiles Products India Ltd. [1982] 1 SOT 269 as also Addl. CIT v. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 745 (Guj.) and CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 7 (Punj. & Har.) held that section 40(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (' Act ') was applicable in case of directors and, therefore, only overall limits of Rs. 72,000 applied and not separate limit for salary and perquisites under section 40A(5) of Act. 7. learned departmental representative urged before us that separate limits for salary and perquisites were applicable relying on CIT v. Forbes, Ewart & Figgis (P.) Ltd. [1982] 138 ITR 1 (Ker.) (FB), CIT v. Travancore Chemical Mfg. Co. [1982] 133 ITR 818 (Ker.) and CIT v. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 936 (Kar.). We are unable to accept revenue's contention. Forbes, Ewart & Figgis (P.) Ltd.'s case dealt with limit specified under section 40(a)(v) and section 40A(5) and did not deal with provisions of section 40(c) in contradistinction to section 40A(5). Section 40(a)(v) was omitted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, with effect from 1-4-1972 and section 40A(5) covered same subject-matter as it came into effect from 1-4- 1972, when section 40(a)(v) was omitted. Kerala High Court held that section 40A(5) was applicable after 1-4-1972. There is no discussion regarding ceiling of Rs. 72,000 under first proviso to section 40A(5)(a) applicable to employee director as against individual ceiling of Rs. 60,000 for salary and Rs. 12,000 for perquisites, under section 40A(5)(c) applicable to employees. 8. Travancore Chemical Mfg. Co.'s case dealt with limited question whether certain directors were employees and were, thus, covered under provisions of section 40A(5). Here also there is no discussion regarding overall ceiling under first proviso to section 40A(5) and individual ceiling of salary and perquisites under section 40A(5)(c) as mentioned above. Supreme Court rejected special leave petition against said judgment on question whether managing director as employee and whether salary paid to him was subject to limits imposed under section 40A(5)---[1982] 137 ITR 13 (St.). 9. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 315 (Kar.) held that ceiling of Rs. 72,000 applied to director under section 40A(5) as managing director, was paid salary of Rs. 72,000 plus perquisites. No question arose regarding individual ceiling of salary and perquisites. said decision was followed in International Instruments (P.) Ltd.'s case. Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd. [1981] 128 ITR 633 held that section 40A had overriding effect in computation of income under head ' Profits and gains of business or profession ' and that function of first proviso to section 40A(5)(a) was to carve out separate field for its operation and, that headwise upper limit of permissible expenditure on salary and perquisites was not applicable to employee director. Punjab and Haryana High Court without specifically discussing headwise limit of salary and perquisites held that limit of Rs. 72,000 applied in case of employee director under section 40A(5) and that same was limit under section 40(c). 10. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd's. case did not deal with existing provisions of law but dealt with section 40(c) and section 40(a)(v). later section was omitted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971 with effect from 1-4-1972 and in its place section 40A(5) was introduced as mentioned above. Section 40(a)(v) did have non-obstante clause but as clause (c) and clause (a)(v) were in same section, therefore, clause (c) did have priority over clause (a)(v) as clause (c) was specific clause dealing with company. Thus, said ruling is not relevant for resolving controversy before us. 11. From above discussions, it is clear that only Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd.'s case and Bombay Special Bench decision in Sapt Textiles Products India Ltd. are authorities on controversy before us. Gujarat High Court in Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd.'s case lays down that overall ceiling of Rs. 72,000 was applicable to employee directors. Sapt Textiles Products India Ltd.'s case lays down in para 14 that ceiling of Rs. 72,000 under section 40(c) and first proviso to section 40A(5) is applicable to director. 12. Thus, unanimous position is that only ceiling of Rs. 72,000 was applicable to director whether he was employee of company or not. Applying said test to remuneration of two directors of Rs. 48,000 and perquisites of Rs. 24,322 in shape of house rent allowance and water, gas and electricity charges, they are well within ceiling of Rs. 72,000 applicable to director and, therefore, no disallowance is called for. We, accordingly, uphold order of AAC deleting addition of Rs. 14,722 though on different ground. 13. In result, revenues appeal is deemed to be partly allowed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. ESPI AGRICULTURAL MACHINERIES LTD.