High Court Of Delhi
CIT vs. Hidechito Shiga
Section 17(2)(iv), 10(10CC)
Sanjiv Khanna & R.V. Easwar, JJ.
Rev. Pet. No. 118 of 2012 in I.T.A. No. 1428 of 2010
21st May, 2012
Harpreet S. Ajmani proxy for Rashmi Chopra for the Appellant. : Piyush Kaushik & Prince Pawaiya for the Respondent.
This is an application for review. The appeal was dismissed on May 31, 2012 (?), on the ground that the tax effect in the present case was Rs. 1,39,715. The appeal was admitted, vide order dated November 23, 2010, on the question whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the tax paid by the employer was exempt under section 10(10CC) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short). It is noticed that section 10(10CC) of the Act was not invoked by the assessee and is not the subject-matter of the appellate impugned order. The issue raised before the Tribunal relates to valuation of the perquisite “rent free accommodation” in terms of rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, as amended with effect from April 1, 2001. We have already interpreted the said rule and held that tax borne arid paid by the employer is covered by section 17(2)(iv) of the Act and, therefore, has to be excluded while computing the perquisite of “rent free accommodation” as per the amended rule 3. (see CIT v. Telsuo Mitera I. T. A. No. 323 of 2012 and connected matters dated May 17, 2012) (since reported in  345 ITR 256 (Delhi)).
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the review petition and the application for condonation in filing and refiling. They are dismissed.
[Citation : 345 ITR 269]