TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there is no default u/s. 192 of the Act and therefore provisions of section 201 are not applicable. It is submitted that the order passed by the ld. Income Tax Officer is bad in law and requires to be quashed. (2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in holding the provisions of rule 3(5) are applicable. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the CIT(A.) ought to have considered that the facility is not provided by the employer and therefore, cannot be treated as perquisite. It be submitted that it be so held now. (3) The learned CIT(A.) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the employer to provide any facility is not relevant. It is submitted that since no expenditure has been incurred by the appellant, the value of perquisites, if any, ought to have been determined at Nil. It be so held now. (4) The learned CIT(A.) erred in holding that proviso to Rule 3(5) is not applicable in the present case. In the facts and circumstances value per child per month does not exceed ₹ 1000 and therefore, the present case is covered by proviso to Rule 3(5). It is submitted that it be so held now. (5)The learned CIT(A.) erred in consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iding education and is considered to be a renowned educational institution in Anand. In the year 1994, the assessee gave corpus fund of ₹ 3 crores to the Anandlaya Education Society. In addition to above, the assessee provides grand-in-aid to the Society, which it provides to other charitable institutions also. Anandlaya Education Society provides concession in fees charged to employees of various organization located in Anand. The assessee does not incur any expenditure towards such concession being provided by the Society. For all these four assessment years, the Assessing Officer passed the order under section 201(1) and 201A for not deducting the tax at source on contributions made by the assessee towards tuition fee of the wards of its employees. The ITO(TDS), Anand computed the perquisite value and worked out deduction of TDS and levied interest thereon. The Assessing Officer in order under section 201(1) worked out the perquisite value, which is required to be included in the salary in each employees as under :- Class Net perquisite KG-V 960/- VI X 1,010/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax(Appeals) held that the fees under whatever had charged is the amount payable on behalf of the student to be allowed to study in the school. Therefore, the benefit has accrued to the employees on the concessional caution money payable to them. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) accordingly held that the Assessing Officer rightly calculated the perquisite value to the employees. However, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) took the view that the value of perquisite for the employees whose wards are studying in Class KG to Class V is ₹ 960/-. The amount being below ₹ 1,000/- is not to be treated as perquisite. The employees whose wards are studying above Class V come under within the taxable definition of perquisite and, therefore, the assessee-company should have deducted tax at source. On this basis, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to recompute tax under section 201 and interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act excluding the employees whose wards are studying Class KG to Class V. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... X 1400 400 10 1010 KG-XII 1500 400 10 1510 The ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the basis of computing the perquisite value as given in the aforesaid chart is same in all the assessment years under appeal. He submitted that in respect of Class KG to Class V students, the value of perquisite computed is ₹ 960/-, which has been accepted by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and perquisite value has been excluded. In respect of Class VI to Class X, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) computed the perquisite value at ₹ 1010/-. He submitted that there is no perquisite value in respect of interest on caution deposit. Therefore, ₹ 10/- should be excluded. After excluding ₹ 10/-, perquisite value is ₹ 1,000/-. In respect of Class XI and XII, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) computed the perquisite value at ₹ 1510/- and worked out at page 3 of his impugned order as under :- F.Y. Class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. counsel of the assessee that there is no perquisite value, cannot be accepted. 10. Having heard both the sides, we have carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. ITAT, D Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 1833 to 1835/AHD/2006 alongwith CO Nos. 234 to 236/AHD/2006 in the case of ITO vs.- Institute of Rural Management, Anand for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 in para 8 held as under :- 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in the light of material placed before us. Rule 3(5) has already been reproduced in the above part of this order. There is no dispute to the extent that relevant contributions have been made by assessee to Anandalaya Education Society for the purpose of providing educational facilities to the children of its employees as the same relates to only the children of employees of the assessee. The legislature in its wisdom has considered that the contribution of the employer towards educational facilities provided to the children of its employees will not be considered to be perquisite provided the same does not exceed ₹ 1,000/- per month per child. Earlier to insertion of Rule 3(5), under Rule 3(e) there was no l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
