1997 (6) TMI 64 - AT - Income Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Value of perquisites for rent-free accommodation.
2. Addition towards electricity charges and telephone expenses as perquisites.
3. Addition of perquisites for the use of the company's car.
4. Entitlement to full standard deduction.
5. Treatment of club subscriptions paid by the company.
6. Deduction for expenses incurred in consultancy services.
7. Addition based on seized materials from a third party.
8. Computation of long-term capital gains on the sale of a horse.

Summary:

1. Value of Perquisites for Rent-Free Accommodation:
The department contended that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the value of perquisites for 'Adayar House' should be computed at Rs. 7,500 instead of Rs. 54,000. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the value fixed was in consonance with the Madras Corporation's valuation.

2. Addition Towards Electricity Charges and Telephone Expenses:
The department argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions towards electricity and telephone expenses as perquisites. The CIT(A) observed that these expenses were incurred for maintaining the company's office and followed binding decisions of the Madras High Court. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the department's ground.

3. Addition of Perquisites for the Use of the Company's Car:
The department claimed that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,000 for the personal use of the company's car by the assessee. The CIT(A) followed the Madras High Court's decision in G. Venkataraman's case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the department's ground.

4. Entitlement to Full Standard Deduction:
The department argued that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to full standard deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that it followed the decision in G. Venkataraman's case.

5. Treatment of Club Subscriptions Paid by the Company:
The department contended that the CIT(A) erred in holding that club subscriptions paid by the company should not be treated as perquisites. The CIT(A) accepted the argument that the memberships were for the company's benefit. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the department's ground.

6. Deduction for Expenses Incurred in Consultancy Services:
The department argued that the CIT(A) erred in allowing a deduction of Rs. 25,000 for expenses incurred in consultancy services. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that there was evidence to prove the genuineness of the assessee's claim.

7. Addition Based on Seized Materials from a Third Party:
The department questioned the deletion of Rs. 95,632 added based on seized materials from a third party. The CIT(A) held that the department had not established a link between the seized papers and the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the department's ground.

8. Computation of Long-Term Capital Gains on Sale of Horse:
The department contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the computation of long-term capital gains on the sale of a horse. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the cost of acquisition was not ascertainable, and followed the Supreme Court's decision in B.C. Srinivasa Setty's case.

Separate Judgment by Judge:
The Sr. Vice-President dissented on certain points, proposing different conclusions regarding the valuation of perquisites for rent-free accommodation, reimbursement of electricity and telephone charges, and the addition based on seized materials. The Third Member, Sri G.E. Veerabhadrappa, resolved the differences, aligning with the Sr. Vice-President on the rent-free accommodation issue and with the Judicial Member on the other issues.

← Previous Next →