https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23493 Expenditure by an employer on rent and maintenance of bungalows provided for employees' residence was not a benefit, amenity or perquisite within section 40(c)(iii) for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The unamended provision did not extend to expenditure relating to assets used by employees for their own purposes or benefit, and the later amendment widening the disallowance from 1 April 1969 could not be applied retrospectively. On that footing, the bungalow rent and maintenance expenses were outside the disallowance and were properly excluded. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:03:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23493 Expenditure by an employer on rent and maintenance of bungalows provided for employees' residence was not a benefit, amenity or perquisite within section 40(c)(iii) for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The unamended provision did not extend to expenditure relating to assets used by employees for their own purposes or benefit, and the later amendment widening the disallowance from 1 April 1969 could not be applied retrospectively. On that footing, the bungalow rent and maintenance expenses were outside the disallowance and were properly excluded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 08 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23493