High Court Of Calcutta
CIT vs. Johnston Pumps (India) Ltd.
Section 40(c)
Dipak Kumar Sen & Mrs. Monjula Bose, JJ.
IT Ref. No. 59 of 1978
24th July, 1986
Counsel Appeared
R.N. Dutta, for the Assessee : A.C. Moita & Sunil Mukherji, for the Revenue
DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.:
On an application of the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal as directed has referred the following question as a question of law arising out of its order for the opinion of this Court :
” Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, cash allowance for lunch, club entrance fee paid to the employees and expenses for repairing the flats occupied by the employees of the assessee did not fall within the expression ” benefit, amenity or perquisite ” within the meaning of s. 40(c)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, and in directing accordingly the allowance of Rs. 79,362 which had been disallowed by the ITO ? “
2. The controversy raised in the question is covered by several decisions of this Court which are as follows : (a) CIT vs. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 431, (b) CIT vs. Tecalemit (Hind) Ltd. (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 28 : (1982) 137 ITR 285 (Cal), (c) Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 137 ITR 827 (Cal), and (d) CIT vs. General Marketing & Manufacturing Co. (1982) 7 Cal Tax Cases 348.
The same view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Warner Hindustan Ltd. (1984) 145 ITR 24 (AP).
Following the said decisions, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
Leave is given to the advocate on record for the assessee to file his vakalatnama within two weeks from date.
MONJULA BOSE, J.:
I agree.
[Citation : 172 ITR 333]
