TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC rules government-controlled body's housing not government accommodation under Section 17(2) and Rule 3 valuation</h1> <h3>CENTRAL FOOD TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)</h3> The SC upheld the HC ruling that for computing the value of perquisites under section 17(2), residential accommodation provided by a government-controlled ... Computing value of perquisites u/s 17(2) - assessee is a Trust constituted under Charitable Endowment Act, 1890 - value of residential accommodation provided by the Central Government or any State Government to the employees either holding office or post in connection with affairs of the Union or of such State or serving with any body or Undertaking under the control of such Government on such deputation. As per HC [2021 (7) TMI 1053 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] for the purposes of Rule 3, the requirement is that the accommodation should be provided by the Central Government or State Government to the employees either holding office or post in connection with affairs of Union or of State or serving with any body or undertaking under the control of such government from deputation. The aforesaid expression is unambiguous and unclear and therefore, its meaning cannot be expanded to include any body, undertaking under the control of Central Government. Merely because assessee is a body or undertaking owned or controlled by the Central Government, it cannot be elevated to the status of Central Government. Thus, the assessee cannot claim that valuation of perquisites in respect of residential accommodation should be computed as in case of an accommodation provided by the Central Government. Therefore, Sl.No.1 of Table 1 of Rule 3 of the Rules does not apply to the assessee. HELD THAT:- Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the respondent(s) at length, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and orders(s). Special Leave Petitions are hence dismissed. The Supreme Court, consisting of HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions after hearing both the petitioner's and respondent's counsel, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders. Pending applications were disposed of.
TaxTMI 
