TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (10) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....up of appeals raises a common question of law and fact. Hence, the three appeals are decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Income-tax Appeal No. 12 of 2003 are mentioned hereinbelow: Facts: Hyundai Heavy Industries Company Ltd., the assessee, was charged with interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short payment of tax deducted at sou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 260A of the Income-tax Act. In all the three appeals we are concerned with the same issue. The assessee-company had employed technicians on the rigs, these technicians were required to work during the on period continuously for 35/28 days. During this period they were given free meals and free boarding which was treated as a perquisite by the Department under section 17(2)(iii) of the Incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d at source to the revenue on the ground that free boarding constituted a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) of the Income-tax Act and on that perquisite the assessee had failed to collect the tax. This decision of the Department has been set aside by the Tribunal and therefore the Department has come by way of appeal to the High Court under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. On the above facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Reasons: We do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the Department. Firstly, in the quantum appeals, the Tribunal had taken the view that free boarding did not constitute a perquisite under section 17(2)(iii). This decision of the Tribunal was not challenged by the Department. Therefore, it is not open to the Depart....