Medical expense reimbursement is not a perquisite under section 40(a)(v), following binding precedent excluding cash payments.

Reimbursement of medical expenses paid by an employer to employees was held not to fall within "benefit, amenity or perquisite" under section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, because the expression, as construed by binding Calcutta HC precedent, does not extend to cash payments. The court followed its earlier view in the assessee's own case and declined to adopt a contrary interpretation taken by another High Court. On that construction, such reimbursements were outside the disallowance computation and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether reimbursement of medical expenses by the assessee to its employees constituted a benefit, amenity or perquisite within the meaning of section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so as to enter into the disallowance computation.

Analysis: The issue was concluded by prior binding precedent of the same court, holding that the expression "benefit, amenity or perquisite" in section 40(a)(v) does not cover cash payments. That view had also been followed in the assessee's earlier case. In the presence of this binding line of authority, the contrary view taken by another High Court was not accepted.

Conclusion: Reimbursement of medical expenses was not a benefit, amenity or perquisite under section 40(a)(v); the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

---