2003 (4) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred on repairs, maintenance and insurance to the assessee s owned accommodation provided to the employees is not perquisites within the meaning of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act? - The building in which the employees reside has been insured. The premium paid is an expenditure incurred by the assessee in respect of the building owned by the assessee. The building is the asset of the assessee. Therefore, the expenditure incurred in insuring the building is a perquisite

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act regarding expenditure on repairs, maintenance, and insurance for accommodation provided to employees.
2. Computation of perquisites value of a car as per rule 3(c) of the Income-tax Rules.
3. Consideration of house rent allowance paid to employees as salary for disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act.

Issue 1:
The court considered whether the expenditure on repairs, maintenance, and insurance for accommodation provided to employees qualifies as perquisites under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. Referring to the Citibank N.A. case, the court held that expenditure on repairs and maintenance is a perquisite. However, for insurance expenditure, the assessee argued that it does not fall under section 40A(5)(a)(ii) as it does not add value to the asset. The court disagreed, stating that any expenditure on an asset used by an employee is subject to the prescribed ceiling under section 40A(5). The judgment in CIT v. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. was deemed inapplicable as it dealt with a different context. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Department, considering the insurance expenditure as covered by section 40A(5)(a)(ii).

Issue 2:
The court addressed the computation of the perquisites value of a car as per rule 3(c) of the Income-tax Rules. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. British Bank of Middle East, the court ruled in favor of the Department, indicating that the question should be answered in the negative.

Issue 3:
Regarding whether house rent allowance paid to employees should be considered as salary for disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, the court relied on the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P) Ltd. The court answered the question in the negative, favoring the Department over the assessee. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.