COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. H.A. BRAAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal considering the various provisions has recorded a finding of fact that the employer has not to incur any expenditure because the employer himself was benefited by Taj Intercontinental Hotel who allowed two rooms free of cost during the tenure of the contract. The Tribunal then held that when a benefit derived by the employer is passed on to the employee, the cost to the employer is the benefit derived by the employee which in the instant case is nil and therefore, including any element of perquisite on account of rent is unwarranted in the case. It is clear therefore, that the finding was recorded on the facts of the case and therefore, question No.1 in para 10 as framed would not arise.

(2.) INSOFAR as question No. 2 is concerned, the issue has been considered by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Emil Webber vs. CIT (1993) 110 CTR (SC) 257 : (1993) 200 ITR 483 (SC) approving the judgment of this Court reported in Emil Webber vs. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 515 (Bom). Considering the above facts the second question would also not arise. Consequently the appeal stands dismissed.