9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: The judgment addresses various issues related to the interpretation and application of section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Question No. 1: The issue pertains to whether the cost of repairs to buildings owned by the assessee and provided to its employees could be treated as a perquisite under section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal held that such expenditure was for maintaining the buildings and not a benefit to the employees, thus disallowing the Revenue's claim. Question No. 2: This question was not addressed by the Tribunal due to lack of relevant facts. Questions Nos. 3 and 6: These questions concern the treatment of bonus and medical expenses paid to employees as perquisites under section 40(c)(iii). Citing a previous court decision, it was concluded that these expenses do not qualify as perquisites. Question No. 4: The query revolves around whether depreciation on buildings and furniture provided to employees constitutes a perquisite under section 40(c)(iii). The judgment distinguishes between sections 40(c)(iii) and 40(a)(v), ruling that depreciation allowance does not fall under the purview of section 40(c)(iii). Question No. 5: This question involves the replacement of crockery and cutlery for employees and whether it qualifies as a perquisite under section 40(c)(iii). The court held that such replacement expenses, being an amenity provided by the employer, exceed the permissible ceiling and thus cannot be deducted. The judgment provides detailed analysis and references to legal precedents to support the conclusions reached for each issue. The court's responses to the questions are clearly outlined, with decisions made in favor of either the Revenue or the assessee based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act.
|
