1986 (7) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. AAC erred in holding that grant of a loan at concessional rate of interest by the employer to the assessee cannot be considered as perquisite chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee under s. 17(2)(iii) of the IT Act and in accordingly deleting the addition of Rs. 3608 made by the ITO in the assessment." 2. The asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted the assessee's claim and deleted the addition made by the ITO. Aggrieved by the order of the AAC, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the AAC was not justified in deleting the addition. He placed reliance on number of Tribunal orders such as ITO vs. Charanjit Singh (1982) 2 ITD 530 (Del). ITO vs. M.G. Bagrecha Udhana (1982) 14 TTJ (Ahd) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....charged constitutes perquisite for the purposes of sec. 17 of the IT Act, 1961. However we find that the Legislature in its wisdom had inserted sub-section (vi) to s. 17 (2) of the Act to include witin the definition of perquisite the difference between fair rate of interest and the rate of interest charged on loans given by the employer to the employees for the purposes of purchase a house. This ....