https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24886 The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee on all issues. The valuation of car perquisites under section 40A(5)(a)(ii) was held to be based on actual expenditure incurred by the employer, not as computed under rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules. Similarly, the computation of perquisites for furnished accommodation should consider actual expenditure, independent of rule 3. The disallowance of expenditure on residential accommodation for managing directors under section 40A(5) was upheld. The issue of canteen coupons expenditure under section 37(2B) was not examined as it was not pressed. en-us Sat, 30 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:27:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24886 The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee on all issues. The valuation of car perquisites under section 40A(5)(a)(ii) was held to be based on actual expenditure incurred by the employer, not as computed under rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules. Similarly, the computation of perquisites for furnished accommodation should consider actual expenditure, independent of rule 3. The disallowance of expenditure on residential accommodation for managing directors under section 40A(5) was upheld. The issue of canteen coupons expenditure under section 37(2B) was not examined as it was not pressed. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 30 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24886