Tribunal directs removal of notional interest as perquisite value for employer-provided accommodation.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the AO to delete the addition of notional interest as perquisite value. The decision was based on Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules and a Bombay High Court judgment, holding that notional interest on the deposit should not be considered a perquisite value for residential accommodation provided by the employer. The addition was removed from the assessee's income for the relevant assessment year, aligning with legal provisions and established case law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether notional interest on deposit given by the employer for securing rented premises should be treated as perquisite value.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Notional interest on deposit as perquisite value

The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A)-28, Mumbai, where the Assessing Officer (AO) had added an amount to the assessee's income, considering notional interest on a deposit given by the employer for securing rented premises as a perquisite. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the appeal. The key argument raised was based on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shankar Krishnan, where it was held that notional interest on such deposits should not be included in the perquisite value. The assessee contended that since the issue was decided in their favor by the High Court, the addition of notional interest should be deleted.

The Tribunal carefully considered the facts and legal position. It noted that the employer had provided rent-free accommodation to the assessee, paying rent and a deposit. While the rent was considered a perquisite, the deposit was also sought to be included. Referring to the High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that as per Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, the perquisite value of residential accommodation should be based on actual lease rent paid, not on a notional basis. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that notional interest on the deposit should not be treated as a perquisite value, in line with the High Court's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO to delete the addition of notional interest as perquisite value. This decision was based on the express provisions of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules and the precedent set by the Bombay High Court judgment in a similar case. The appeal was allowed, and the addition was removed from the assessee's income for the relevant assessment year.

This comprehensive analysis highlights how the Tribunal interpreted the legal principles and applied the relevant case law to resolve the issue of whether notional interest on a deposit given by the employer for securing rented premises should be treated as a perquisite value. The decision was based on a sound understanding of the law and precedent, ensuring a fair outcome for the assessee.

---