Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. Three questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1979-80. During the relevant previous year, the assessee had paid to its managing director a total sum of Rs. 1, 07, 760 out of which Rs. 60, 000 was paid towards the fixed remuneration, Rs. 30, 000 was paid towards the commission at one per cent of the net profit and the balance amounts were paid towards the provident fund, insurance, H.R.A., and medical reimbursement. The amount in excess of Rs. 72, 000 was disallowed by the AO. That disallowance was upheld by the CIT(A). On further appeal to the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the commission paid to the managing director should not be included in the calculation of that remuneration. That contention was negatived, and in our opinion rightly, s. 40(c) of the Act prescribe the limit on the remuneration and perquisites allowable and the amount of commission cannot be excluded from the computation for s. 40(c). The first question referred to us viz., whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the maximum permissible limit of expenditure on remuneration and perquisites to the managing director in this case cannot exceed the limit of Rs. 72, 000, even without a finding whether the remuneration was excessive on unreasonable having regard to the business needs of the company is, therefore, to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The second question is related to the first question. That question is as to whether the commission is includible in the taxation limit as laid in s. 40(c) of the Act. That question is also to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The last question is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the surtax liability of the year in computing the total income of the assessee. That question is also to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The last question is whether the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the surtax liability of the year in computing the total income of the assessee. That question is also to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smith Kline and French (I) Ltd. vs. CIT, wherein it was held that the surtax levied under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 cannot be allowed as a deduction, while computing the business incomeAll the questions referred to us have therefore, to be, and are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.