2003 (2) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or amenity as perquisite in the hands of the employee-director?" - In view of the said authoritative pronouncement and bearing in mind the fact that the provisions of section 40(c) are substantially irk pari materia with the provisions of section 40A(5), the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 27-2-2003 - Judg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... As is evident from the format of the question, the issue raised by the Revenue is purely legal and, therefore, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. Suffice it to note that the issue involved is as to whether for the purpose of computing the disallowance under section 40(c) of the Act in the hands of the employer, the value of the perquisite has to be taken as the same amount which has been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... chargeable under the head "Salaries", whereas section 40A(5) deals with computation of income under the head "Profits and gains of business" of the employer. It is further observed that there is no anomaly in applying section 40A(5), while making the assessment of the employer-assessee. Rather it will be clearly wrong to apply rule 3, which applies qua the employee, because the said rule cannot pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X