2000 (4) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has for this purpose referred to p. 12 of the assessee's paper-book. As against this the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has not raised any material argument. 3. We have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant materials on record. We find that in the CIT(A)'s order dt. 30th July, 1991, passed in appeals for asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1989-90, it has been held that there exists employer-employee relationship between the company and the appellant and so the deduction under s. 16(i) is allowed. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the fact that the learned CIT(A) has himself allowed the standard deduction under s. 16(i) in assessee's own case for asst. yr. 1989-90, we find no justificati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not been received by the company from the assessee employee during this year, though in subsequent years, the company has charged the employee for the amount of personal user of telephone. He has also contended that in other director's case, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition on account of these perquisites regarding car and telephone and for this he has referred to pp. 18-21 and 22-27 of the paper-book. 5. As against this the learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that Shri Modi has been using the car for personal use and these perquisites are being enjoyed by the directors which has been considered and in turn was added by the AO. He has also contended that disallowance in the case of the company and non -recover....