Commissioner of Income Tax vs Johnston Pumps (India) Ltd.

Dipak Kumar Sen, J.—On an application of the Revenue u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal as directed has referred the following question as a question of law arising out of its order for the opinion of this court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that house rent allowance, conveyance allowance, cash allowance for lunch, club entrance fee paid to the employees and expenses for repairing the flats occupied by the employees of the assessee did not fall within the expression " benefit, amenity or perquisite " within the meaning of Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in directing accordingly the allowance of Rs. 79,362 which had been disallowed by the Income Tax Officer ?"

The controversy raised in the question is covered by several decisions of this court which are as follows :

(a) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd., ,

(b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tecalemit (Hind) Ltd., ,

(c) Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, , and

(d) CIT v. General Marketing & Manufacturing Co. [1982] 7 Cal Tax Cas 348.

The same view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Warner Hindustan Ltd., .

Following the said decisions, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

There will be no order as to costs.

Leave is given to the advocate on record for the assessee to file his vakalatnama within two weeks from date.

Monjula Bose, J.

I agree.