https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448208 ITAT DELHI held for the taxpayer that the AO erred in invoking Rule 3 and treating the employer as in default under s.201 without first finding that accommodation was provided at a concessional rate within s.17(2)(ii). Although the CIT(A) wrongly concluded the employer was a Central Government body, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) result because the AO failed to establish concession and apply the perquisite valuation rule. Decision rendered against the revenue. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Aug 2025 18:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448208 ITAT DELHI held for the taxpayer that the AO erred in invoking Rule 3 and treating the employer as in default under s.201 without first finding that accommodation was provided at a concessional rate within s.17(2)(ii). Although the CIT(A) wrongly concluded the employer was a Central Government body, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) result because the AO failed to establish concession and apply the perquisite valuation rule. Decision rendered against the revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448208