<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (3) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21996</link>
    <description>Valuation of free furnished residential accommodation as a perquisite under the prescribed income-tax rule was treated as a factual exercise because the Tribunal applied rule 3(1)(ii) and no statutory provision was shown to have been ignored. Since the valuation was also not found unreasonable on the facts, the matter did not raise a debatable question of law for interference. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:20:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21996</link>
      <description>Valuation of free furnished residential accommodation as a perquisite under the prescribed income-tax rule was treated as a factual exercise because the Tribunal applied rule 3(1)(ii) and no statutory provision was shown to have been ignored. Since the valuation was also not found unreasonable on the facts, the matter did not raise a debatable question of law for interference. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>