BIRLA VIDYA NIKETAN vs. I.T.A


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

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


the proviso to Rule 3(5) of the Act. It was the Assessee's case that the proviso to Rule 3(5) applies and that since the value of the benefit that did not exceed Rs.1,000/- per month, the substantive portion of Rule 3(5) of the IT Rules was not apply. This was negatived by the Tribunal, and in our view rightly.

For ready reference, Rule 3(5) reads as under:

"(5) The value of benefit to the employee resulting from the provision of free or concessional educational facilities for any member of his household shall be determined as the sum equal to the amount of expenditure incurred by the employer in that behalf or where the educational institution is itself maintained and owned by the employer or where free educational facilities for such member of employees' household are allowed in any other educational institution by reason of his being in employment of that employer, the value of the perquisite of the employee shall be determined with reference to the cost of such education in a similar institution in or near the locality. Where any amount is paid or recovered from the employee on that account, the value of benefit shall be reduced by the amount so paid or recovered.

Provided that where the educational institution itself or maintained and owned by the employer and free educational facilities are provided to the children of the employee or where such free educational facilities are provided in any institution by reason of his being in employment of that employer, nothing contained in this sub-

2007:DHC:10195-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

- 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.

substantial question of law.

ê ª

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

MADAN B.LOKUR, J.

September 13, 2007 rk