https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20313 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that repair expenses for premises occupied by an employee should not be considered for disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the company's obligation to maintain its property did not confer any benefit or perquisite to the employees, leading to the decision that no benefit accrued to employees from the repair expenses. The judgment was delivered by Judges Ajit K. Sengupta and Shyamal Kumar Sen, with Judge Sen concurring with the decision. en-us Wed, 31 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:34:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20313 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that repair expenses for premises occupied by an employee should not be considered for disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the company's obligation to maintain its property did not confer any benefit or perquisite to the employees, leading to the decision that no benefit accrued to employees from the repair expenses. The judgment was delivered by Judges Ajit K. Sengupta and Shyamal Kumar Sen, with Judge Sen concurring with the decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20313