9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt employers as claimed; (iii) The AAC has failed to appreciate by treating the perquisites as part of the salary on which the standard deduction was also permissible; (iv) The AAC has erred by confirming the value of perquisite at Rs.12,000 per year which is against law and fact of the case; (v) That the value of the perquisites have to be computed in accordance with r. 3 of the IT Rules, 1961. 2. As regards the standard deduction, the ITO in these cases has allowed a maximum deduction of Rs. 3,500 only after grouping together the entire salary income. He has not allowed separate deductions claimed by the assessee on the salary received from Indore Land and Finance (P) Ltd., on salary from Construction Co., Indore, and on furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent free accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer. He, therefore, contended that the assessee s, if provided with rent free accommodation in lieu of salary, they are entitled for standard deduction in the salary received by the assessee s in the form of perquisite and, therefore, the ITO is not justified in not giving standard deduction with respect to the value of the rent free accommodation provided to the assessee s. 7. The ld. departmental representative, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions on either side. After carefully going through the provisions of s. 17 of the IT Act, we are of the opinion that in view of the fact that salary in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contentions made before the AAC and further relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish vs. CIT, Delhi (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 311 : (1981) 131 ITR 435 (SC) and Amolak Ram Khosla vs. CIT, Delhi-II (1981) 131 ITR 589 (SC) where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the Annual Letting Value of the house is the standard rent where the Rent Control Act prevails in the vicinity. Relying on the aforesaid decision, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended before us that the ITO is not justified in valuing the perquisite at Rs. 12,000 and the AAC is not justified in sustaining the same. 12. The ld. departmental representative, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 13. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
