https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433896 Employer contribution to an approved superannuation fund was treated as a perquisite under the head salary to the extent it exceeded the statutory threshold, and the rectification challenge failed because the governing provision expressly brought such excess within tax and the processing order disclosed no patent mistake. By contrast, the adjustment for conveyance maintenance reimbursement was deleted because the exemption depended on verification of actual expenditure, the record did not establish that the claim was unsustainable, and the assessee's partial self-disallowance was found reasonable. The result was that the superannuation fund adjustment was sustained, while relief was granted on the reimbursement issue. en-us Thu, 09 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433896 Employer contribution to an approved superannuation fund was treated as a perquisite under the head salary to the extent it exceeded the statutory threshold, and the rectification challenge failed because the governing provision expressly brought such excess within tax and the processing order disclosed no patent mistake. By contrast, the adjustment for conveyance maintenance reimbursement was deleted because the exemption depended on verification of actual expenditure, the record did not establish that the claim was unsustainable, and the assessee's partial self-disallowance was found reasonable. The result was that the superannuation fund adjustment was sustained, while relief was granted on the reimbursement issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433896