Commissioner of Income Tax vs Blaze Advertising Pvt. Ltd.

T.D. Sugla, J.—In this departmental reference relating to the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72, the ITAT has referred to this Court the following questions of law for opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961.

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of s. 40(a)(v) of the IT Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that what was paid as bonus by the assessee-company to its employees getting a salary or over Rs. 750 month was not a ''perquisite'' for the purposes of the said provisions."

"(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of a s. 40(a)(v) of the IT Act, what was paid as bonus by the assessee-company to its employees getting a salary not exceeding Rs. 750 a month in excess of the upper limits fixed by the Bonus Act, 1965, was a perquisite and such excess case within the ambit of the said provisions ?"

"(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of s. 40(a)(v) of the IT Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the house rent and car allowances paid in cash to certain employees were not perquisites, and in confirming the AAC''s decision with regard to the sum of Rs. 13,600 added back by the ITO in terms of the said provision ?"

Question Nos. 1 and 2 arise out of asst. yrs. 1970-71 whereas the 3rd question arises out of asst. yr. 1971-72.

The Counsel are agreed that in view of our Court''s Judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-II Vs. Indokem Private Ltd., , all the three questions have to be answered in favour of the assessee. However, keeping in view the frame of the questions, we answer the questions Nos. 1 and 3 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and question No. 2 in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

No order as to costs.