https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11394 The court ruled in favor of the Department on all issues. It held that expenditure on repairs and maintenance for employee accommodation qualifies as a perquisite under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. Additionally, insurance expenditure for such accommodation was deemed covered by the same section. The computation of the perquisites value of a car under rule 3(c) of the Income-tax Rules was decided against the assessee. Lastly, the court determined that house rent allowance paid to employees should not be considered as salary for disallowance under section 40A(5). The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs. en-us Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11394 The court ruled in favor of the Department on all issues. It held that expenditure on repairs and maintenance for employee accommodation qualifies as a perquisite under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. Additionally, insurance expenditure for such accommodation was deemed covered by the same section. The computation of the perquisites value of a car under rule 3(c) of the Income-tax Rules was decided against the assessee. Lastly, the court determined that house rent allowance paid to employees should not be considered as salary for disallowance under section 40A(5). The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11394