https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21658 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues: 1) Reimbursement of medical expenses to an employee was not considered a perquisite under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. 2) The quantum of perquisites for rent should be based on the employer's expenditure, not rule 3 of Income-tax Rules. 3) Cash allowances like car and house rent allowances were not treated as part of an employee's salary for calculating excess perquisite under section 40A(5). The judgment aligned with previous decisions and legal interpretations, emphasizing the exclusion of cash reimbursements from the definition of "perquisite." en-us Mon, 18 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Nov 2009 13:40:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21658 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues: 1) Reimbursement of medical expenses to an employee was not considered a perquisite under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. 2) The quantum of perquisites for rent should be based on the employer's expenditure, not rule 3 of Income-tax Rules. 3) Cash allowances like car and house rent allowances were not treated as part of an employee's salary for calculating excess perquisite under section 40A(5). The judgment aligned with previous decisions and legal interpretations, emphasizing the exclusion of cash reimbursements from the definition of "perquisite." Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21658