<?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>2013 (9) TMI 307 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236874</link>
    <description>Residential accommodation provided by a Government-controlled body to employees retaining Government status is valued under the Government accommodation formula in Rule 3(1), Table I, where the body is constituted under statute, controlled by Government, and the premises are owned by the State Governments. The Board was treated as a Government organisation, so the slab applicable to other employers owning or leasing accommodation did not apply. The perquisite value had to be computed on the licence fee determined under the Government rules. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and the section 201 demand, together with interest under section 201(1A), could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 307 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236874</link>
      <description>Residential accommodation provided by a Government-controlled body to employees retaining Government status is valued under the Government accommodation formula in Rule 3(1), Table I, where the body is constituted under statute, controlled by Government, and the premises are owned by the State Governments. The Board was treated as a Government organisation, so the slab applicable to other employers owning or leasing accommodation did not apply. The perquisite value had to be computed on the licence fee determined under the Government rules. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed and the section 201 demand, together with interest under section 201(1A), could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>