9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in holding that grant of a loan at concessional rate of interest by the employer to the assessee cannot be considered as perquisite chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee under s. 17(2)(iii) of the IT Act and in accordingly deleting the addition of Rs. 3608 made by the ITO in the assessment." 2. The assessee is an employee of M/s Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. And received a housing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order of the AAC, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the AAC was not justified in deleting the addition. He placed reliance on number of Tribunal orders such as ITO vs. Charanjit Singh (1982) 2 ITD 530 (Del). ITO vs. M.G. Bagrecha Udhana (1982) 14 TTJ (Ahd) 670 : (1982) 1 ITD 292 (Ahd), Virendra Madhavlal vs. ITO (1984) 8 ITD 666 (Bom) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever we find that the Legislature in its wisdom had inserted sub-section (vi) to s. 17 (2) of the Act to include witin the definition of perquisite the difference between fair rate of interest and the rate of interest charged on loans given by the employer to the employees for the purposes of purchase a house. This was done by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 w.e.f. 1st April, 1985. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
