https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5449 The SC held that section 40(a)(v) is an expanded version of section 40(c)(iii) and that the statutory ceiling under section 40A(5) applies to allowances, including depreciation, in respect of assessee-owned assets used by employees for their own benefit. The Court rejected a literalist reading that would treat the two situations in section 40(a)(v) differently as discriminatory and incongruous, noting Parliament's intent in the Finance Bill memorandum. The court further observed that the controversy does not arise under section 40A(5) because it uses "an employee," clarifying the provision's scope. en-us Tue, 01 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Oct 2025 22:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5449 The SC held that section 40(a)(v) is an expanded version of section 40(c)(iii) and that the statutory ceiling under section 40A(5) applies to allowances, including depreciation, in respect of assessee-owned assets used by employees for their own benefit. The Court rejected a literalist reading that would treat the two situations in section 40(a)(v) differently as discriminatory and incongruous, noting Parliament's intent in the Finance Bill memorandum. The court further observed that the controversy does not arise under section 40A(5) because it uses "an employee," clarifying the provision's scope. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 01 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5449