<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1985 (8) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63662</link>
    <description>Residential accommodation subject to rent control could not be valued as a concessional perquisite where the standard rent for similar premises had already been fixed at Rs. 30 per month. On those facts, payment of Rs. 30 per month was not a concession warranting any further addition under Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The perquisite valuation made on the footing of concessional accommodation was therefore unsustainable, and the addition was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:40:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (8) TMI 115 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63662</link>
      <description>Residential accommodation subject to rent control could not be valued as a concessional perquisite where the standard rent for similar premises had already been fixed at Rs. 30 per month. On those facts, payment of Rs. 30 per month was not a concession warranting any further addition under Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The perquisite valuation made on the footing of concessional accommodation was therefore unsustainable, and the addition was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>