https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771757 ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of the assessee-director regarding addition of deemed perquisite under section 2(24)(iv). The AO erroneously treated company's interest payments as perquisite, assuming the employer discharged the director's bank obligation. However, the director had given a loan to the company, which repaid principal and interest to the director, not directly to the bank. Since the company paid the director (not the bank), and the director still owed money to the company, no perquisite arose. Appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 May 2025 11:46:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771757 ITAT Chennai ruled in favor of the assessee-director regarding addition of deemed perquisite under section 2(24)(iv). The AO erroneously treated company's interest payments as perquisite, assuming the employer discharged the director's bank obligation. However, the director had given a loan to the company, which repaid principal and interest to the director, not directly to the bank. Since the company paid the director (not the bank), and the director still owed money to the company, no perquisite arose. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771757