https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282394 Business expenditure on maintenance of a building owned by the assessee and used by the Managing Director as residence was treated as not constituting a perquisite for disallowance purposes under section 40(c), so the assessee succeeded on that point. Excise duty incentive was held not to qualify for inclusion in computing relief under section 80HH, so the Revenue succeeded on that point. The discussion therefore reflects a mixed outcome: the residential maintenance expense was allowed, while the excise duty incentive was excluded from the relief computation. en-us Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Aug 2019 15:04:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282394 Business expenditure on maintenance of a building owned by the assessee and used by the Managing Director as residence was treated as not constituting a perquisite for disallowance purposes under section 40(c), so the assessee succeeded on that point. Excise duty incentive was held not to qualify for inclusion in computing relief under section 80HH, so the Revenue succeeded on that point. The discussion therefore reflects a mixed outcome: the residential maintenance expense was allowed, while the excise duty incentive was excluded from the relief computation. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282394