INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER Vs. PIEM HOTELS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two appeals by the Department relating to the asst. yrs. 1982 -83 and 1983 -84. There is also a cross -objection by the assessee relating to the asst. yr. 1983 -84.

(2.) WE will take the departmental appeal for 1983 -84 first for disposal. The first ground of appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the provision of S. 40C and not those of S. 40A(5) are applicable in the case of employee directors.

(3.) THE next ground of appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the perquisite value of chauffeur driven car should be adopted on the basis of the Rule under IT Rules for the purpose of computing disallowance under S. 40A(5) as against the value worked out by the IAC on the basis of the actual expenses incurred by the assessee though that rule is for quantifying addition in the hands of employees and not employer. Here again, we find that the order of the CIT(A) is not supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. vs . CIT : [1984]145ITR793(Bom) . We, in the circumstances, shall reverse the same and restore that of the ITO.