1984 (8) TMI 129

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpanies. Similarly Shri Satish Kumar Pawa had filed a return of income of Rs. 1,14,290 which had been subsequently revised on15th Jan., 1983by showing an income of Rs. 120, 810, which included the value of perquisites received from the employer companies. Alongwith the revised returns filed by the two assessees and letters. dt.15th Jan., 1983had been furnished and it had been stated therein that since the Directors had used the car of the company for personal purposes, the perquisites representing the free user of the car may be included in the total income. Accordingly, the ITO adds a sum of Rs. 3,600 in the cases of each of the two appellants as perquisite representing the free user of car. Since the conveyance had been provided to the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as not assessable as perquisite and as a part of the salaries of the two Directors. He has further relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. L.W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC), in order to contend that the perquisite by way of user of car did not form part of the salary income. With regard to the curtailment of standard deduction, the ld. counsel has contended that the provisions of s. 16 had been wrongly interpreted by the lower authorities in order to restrict the allowance to Rs. 1000 in each of the two cases. On the other hand Shri J.R. Malhotra, ld. departmental representative has relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. So far as the accessibilit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... That was never done. In these circumstances we are of the view that the sue of the car by the two Directors was not unauthorised. In these circumstances, the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in CIT vs. Adaikappa Chettiar & Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 90 (Mad) on which reliance has been placed by the appellant's counsel is of no avail. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of L.W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC) also does not help the case as made out by the ld. counsel for the appellants. The facts in that case were wholly different. In that case, the question involved was as to whether the employer's share of contribution to the pension scheme of employees was assessable as income under s. 7(1) of the India....