https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21709 The High Court held that the assessee, a director provided with rent-free accommodation, was not obligated to pay rent personally as per the agreement with the employer. Therefore, the perquisite value was correctly computed under section 17(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than section 17(2)(iv). The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and rejecting the Revenue's argument that the assessee, as a tenant, was obliged to pay rent. The judgment favored the assessee on both questions referred, with no costs awarded. en-us Mon, 28 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:26:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21709 The High Court held that the assessee, a director provided with rent-free accommodation, was not obligated to pay rent personally as per the agreement with the employer. Therefore, the perquisite value was correctly computed under section 17(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, rather than section 17(2)(iv). The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee and rejecting the Revenue's argument that the assessee, as a tenant, was obliged to pay rent. The judgment favored the assessee on both questions referred, with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21709