https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14628 The court determined that expenses such as rates and taxes on buildings and vehicles did not qualify as perquisites under sections 40(c) and 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the salary paid to a watchman, maintenance of vehicles, and depreciation were considered perquisites. Additionally, personal accident insurance premium payments were not deemed perquisites. The court upheld the eligibility of a deposit with the Industrial Development Bank of India for surcharge reduction under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977, allowing the assessee to benefit from the reduction in surcharge as per the statutory conditions. en-us Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14628 The court determined that expenses such as rates and taxes on buildings and vehicles did not qualify as perquisites under sections 40(c) and 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the salary paid to a watchman, maintenance of vehicles, and depreciation were considered perquisites. Additionally, personal accident insurance premium payments were not deemed perquisites. The court upheld the eligibility of a deposit with the Industrial Development Bank of India for surcharge reduction under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977, allowing the assessee to benefit from the reduction in surcharge as per the statutory conditions. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14628