Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: September 13, 2007
ITA No. 872 of 2007
BIRLA VIDYA NIKETAN
....Appellant
Through: Mr. Krishan Mahajan with Mr.
K.Sampath, Advocates
versus
\$ INCOME TAX OFFICER
..... Respondent
Through Ms. P.L. Bansal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B.LOKUR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
ORDER
For orders, see ITA No. 868 of 2007.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
MADAN B.LOKUR, J.
September 13, 2007 rk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: September 13, 2007
+ ITA No. 868 of 2007
BIRLA VIDYA NIKETAN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Krishan Mahajan with Mr. K.Sampath, Advocates
versus
\$ INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through Ms. P.L. Bansal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B.LOKUR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed YES to see the judgment?
To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YES
: Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (oral)
This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') is directed against a common order dated 23<sup>rd</sup> March, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' Delhi ('Tribunal') in I.T.A. Nos. 2272 to 2281(Del)/2006. Although 10 corresponding appeals have been filed by the Assessee, the present order is being passed in ITA No. 868 of 2007 relevant to financial year 2000-01. since common issues arise in all
Rule 3(5) of the IT Rules. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow surdeduction while computing the taxable perquisite for the purposes of tax deduction under Section 201 (1) and interest thereon under Section 201(1A) of the Act.
- 6. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the proviso to Rule 3(5) would not apply at all because the employer (Assessee) in the present case does not provide free educational facilities to children of its employees. If the proviso did not apply then it mattered little that value of the concession was less than Rs.12,000/- per annum. Accordingly, the Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT(A). - 7. Appearing for the Assessee, Mr. Krishan Mahajan and Mr. K.Sampath, Advocates submitted that the Tribunal had overlooked the substantive portion of Rule 3(5) of the IT Rules which required the value of the benefit to the employee to be determined as the sum equal to the amount of expenditure incurred by the employer towards concessional educational facilities. Where the educational institution is itself maintained and owned by the employer, the value of the perquisite had to be determined with reference to the cost of such education in a similar institution in or near the locality.
O We find that the area advanced by the Assessing before the
2007:DHC:10207-DB
what the value of the benefit to the employee was by making a reference to the cost of such education in a similar institution in or near the locality. This submission is without force since the calculations were before the Assessing Officer in the first instance and thereafter a report was called for from the Assessing Officer by the CIT (A). The extent of perquisite in the form of concessional fees charged to the children of the employee of the Assessee was also determined. These are pure questions of fact and do not raise any substantial question of law.
- 11. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any error in the impugned order of the Tribunal which is hereby affirmed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. - 12. This appeal is dismissed.
ê ª
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
MADAN B.LOKUR, J.
September 13, 2007 rk