https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23952 Reimbursement of medical expenses paid by an employer to employees was held not to fall within "benefit, amenity or perquisite" under section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, because the expression, as construed by binding Calcutta HC precedent, does not extend to cash payments. The court followed its earlier view in the assessee's own case and declined to adopt a contrary interpretation taken by another High Court. On that construction, such reimbursements were outside the disallowance computation and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 27 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:12:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23952 Reimbursement of medical expenses paid by an employer to employees was held not to fall within "benefit, amenity or perquisite" under section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, because the expression, as construed by binding Calcutta HC precedent, does not extend to cash payments. The court followed its earlier view in the assessee's own case and declined to adopt a contrary interpretation taken by another High Court. On that construction, such reimbursements were outside the disallowance computation and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23952