BIRLA VIDYA NIKETAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 869 / 2007HC Delhi13 September 20078 pages
For Petitioner: K.SAMPATH
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the valuation of perquisites based on the cost of education in similar institutions was a question of fact. No substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Birla Vidya Niketan, appealed against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order concerning the valuation of perquisites for employees' children's education. The Tribunal had affirmed the Assessing Officer's calculation of the benefit to the employee.

What were the issues?

Whether the valuation of perquisites for concessional education provided to employees' children raises a substantial question of law. Whether the Tribunal erred in affirming the Assessing Officer's factual determination of perquisite value.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: September 13, 2007

ITA No. 869 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

![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)

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

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed YES to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YES

: Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (oral)

1.

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

2007:DHC:10204-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

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →