1981 (12) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hpur found that the orders of the ITO for both the years were prejudicial to the interest of the revenue primarily, inter alia, on the following considerations : (i) Tax deducted at source by the Government of Iran from the salary paid to the assessee by the said foreign Government was erroneously allowed in full and against the provisions of section 91 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) The assessee's claim for deduction of an amount on account of contributions towards Health Success Scheme etc., in Iran was wrongly allowed by the ITO under the head 'salary' which was not in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. (iii) Standard deduction admissible under section 16 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowed in exces....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enue. In our opinion, it is not so. This issue is already covered by an earlier order of Jaipur Bench in the case of Dr. R.N. Jhanji in IT Appeal No. 1484/JP/79 dated 5th August, 1980. Following this order, we are of the opinion that there was no error in the orders of the ITO on this account. With regard to the second contention, the Commissioner, Jodhpur in para 12 of his order held that the contribution made by the assessee towards the health success scheme in Iran in the capacity of an employee in the sum of Rs.4,217 for the assessment year 1976-77 and Rs. 1,650 for the assessment year1977-78 were in the nature of perquisite chargeable to income-tax under section 17(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The learned Counsel of the assessee had f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat 14,802 Rials were in fact paid by the assessee to Iran Government under the compulsory health scheme i.e. probably for providing medical facilities to the assessee. It is not a perquisite as such as held by the Commissioner. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned Commissioner that the amount of Rs. 4,217 and Rs. 1,850 for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 deducted on account of health scheme in Rials were perquisite chargeable to tax under section 17(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The learned Departmental Repersentative has argued that the amount was the salary and out of that salary deductions were made by the Iran Government for providing medical care to the assessee for which there was no provision under the Income....