Director not liable to pay rent for employer-provided accommodation under Income-tax Act.

The High Court held that the assessee, a director provided with rent-free accommodation, was not obligated to pay rent personally as per the agreement with the employer. Therefore, the perquisite value was correctly computed under section 17(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than section 17(2)(iv). The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and rejecting the Revenue's argument that the assessee, as a tenant, was obliged to pay rent. The judgment favored the assessee on both questions referred, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Computation of perquisite value of rent-free accommodation under section 17(2)(i) vs. section 17(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the assessment year 1982-83, where the assessee, a director of a company, was provided with rent-free accommodation as per the terms of an agreement. The dispute arose regarding the computation of the perquisite value of the accommodation under section 17(2)(i) and section 17(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer initially calculated the perquisite value under section 17(2)(iv) based on the rent paid by the employer directly to the landlord. However, the Appellate Tribunal overturned this decision, stating that the employer providing rent directly did not imply the assessee was under an obligation to pay rent, thus favoring the application of section 17(2)(i) for computation.

The two questions of law referred to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, revolved around the correct application of sections 17(2)(i) and 17(2)(iv) in this scenario. The first question queried whether the Tribunal was correct in applying section 17(2)(i) instead of section 17(2)(iv) considering the assessee's obligation to pay rent as the tenant. The second question raised whether the Tribunal erred in determining that the assessee had no obligation to pay rent directly to the landlord, thus warranting the application of section 17(2)(i) over section 17(2)(iv).

The court analyzed the terms of the agreement between the assessee and the employer, emphasizing that the assessee was entitled to rent-free accommodation as per the service conditions. The court noted that as long as this agreement was in force, the assessee had no obligation to pay rent personally, as the employer fulfilled this obligation by paying rent directly to the landlord. Therefore, the court concluded that section 17(2)(i) was correctly applicable in this case, rejecting the Revenue's argument that the assessee, being a tenant, was obligated to pay rent. Consequently, both questions were answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.

In a concurring opinion, the second judge agreed with the decision and reasoning provided by the primary judge, affirming the correctness of applying section 17(2)(i) for computing the perquisite value of the rent-free accommodation in this particular case.

---