9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, as according to him, the construction placed by the Tribunal on s. 40A (5) was very narrow and did not reflect the intention of the legislature. Further since the Department was in reference before the High Court on this issue, he did not follow the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Blackie Sons (Ind) Ltd. 2. On an appeal by the assessee, however, the CIT (A) followed the decision in the case of Blacke Song (Ind) Ltd. and directed the ITO to modify the disallowance under/s. 40A (5) without treating these items as perquisites. 3. The Revenue is, therefore, in appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the CIT (A) erred in holding that case payment made by the assessee to its employees on account of conveyance, serva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated as "perquisite", but perquisite had to be included in the computation of salary under 17 (1) (iv) of the IT Act. Finally, our attention is invited to the Tribunal Bombay Bench 'D' decision in the case of M/s Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. vs. ITO. in ITA. No. 1999 (Bom)/1981 where the Tribunal has held that any cash payment to an employee cannot be treated as a perquisite. 4. We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments on either sides. The dispute before us lies within a very narrow compass. The question to be considered is whether the cash payment made by an employer to an employee for reimbursing the employee on the expenditure incurred by him on conveyance, servants' wages, house r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial is the "provision of a perquisite" to an employee. Where the question is whether it is convertible into money or not arise, it can arise only with reference to something which is not cash. Once the payment is in cash, it cannot be a perquisite. We shall, therefore, follow the Karnataka High Court decision in (1980) 20 CTR (Kar) 11 : (1980) 126 ITR 340 (Kar), the Calcutta High Court decisions in (1979) 119 ITR 431 (Cal), (1982) 137 ITR 827 (Cal), (1982) 30 CTR (Cal) 71 : (1983) 141 ITR 827 (Cal), (1982) 30 CTR (Cal) 71 : (1983) 141 ITR 712 (Cal), (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 150 (Mad). and hold that the cash payments made to the employees in respect of certain liabilities of their were not to be treated as perquisites for the purposes of s. 40A ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
