TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 963
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....M BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR MANISH J SHAH, CAVEATOR ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Leave to amend. 2. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following question: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in holding that the pro-rate medical allowances given by the Employer to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....['the Act' for short] and that therefore, invited the requirement of deducting tax at source. 4. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgement, reversed the decision of the Revenue Authorities by noting that it was the the case of the Revenue that the employees had not actually been reimbursed such amount or that the same was excessive. Learned counsel Mr. J.P.Shah for the assessee would addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... previous year. Thus, reimbursement of medical expenditure actually incurred by the employee on himself or his family or upto a ceiling of Rs. 15,000/- would not be included in the term "perquisite". This is precisely what are the facts in the present case. The Revenue does not contend that the ceiling of Rs. 15,000/- was breached. Prime objection of the Revenue appears to be the fixed reimburseme....