SCOTT R.BAYMAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,DEL

ITA - 285 / 2003HC Delhi17 August 201211 pages
For Petitioner: CS AGGARWAL,PRAKASH KUMAR
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the expenses incurred by the employer for repairs and renovations of the rented accommodation did not constitute a perquisite in the hands of the employee. The court emphasized that the Income Tax Act prescribes specific methods for valuing perquisites, and deviating from these methods is not permissible.

What were the facts?

The assessee's employer incurred significant expenses for the repair and renovation of the residential accommodation occupied by the assessee. The Assessing Officer treated this expenditure as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses incurred by an employer for repairs and renovations of an employee's residence constitute a taxable perquisite, and if so, how such perquisite should be valued.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 17(2)(iv),Section 17(2)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

ITA No.285/2003 Page 1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RESERVED ON : 09.08.2012 DECIDED ON : 17.08.2012

+

ITA 285/2003

SCOTT R.BAYMAN

..... Appellant

Through : Mr. S.Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Ms. Preeti Goel and Ms. Roohina Dua, Advocates

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,DEL ..... Respondent

Through : Mr. Deepak Chopra, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR

MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT %

1.

The present appeal is directed against an order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 21.08.2012 in ITA No.1617/Del/97. The following question of law was framed for consideration in the present appeal on 30.07.2004. “Whether the amount spent by the employer towards the repair of building would be covered by clauses (iii) & (iv) of Sub-Section 2 of Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

2.

The brief facts are that the assessee was the President and CEO of M/s GE International Operations Corp. Inc. (in short GEI

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 17(2)(iv)

All 36 judgments and leading authorities on Section 17(2)(iv) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →