Dipak Kumar Sen, J.:— On an application of the Revenue under section 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?”
2. The controversy raised in the question is covered by several decisions of this court which are as follows:
(a) CIT v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., [1979] 119 ITR 431,
(b) Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Tecalemit (Hind) Ltd., [1982] 137 ITR 285 (Cal),
(c) Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT, [1982] 137 ITR 827 (Cal), and
(d) Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. General Marketing & Manufacturing Co., [1982] 7 Cal Tax Cas 348.
3. The same view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd., [1984] 145 ITR 24.
4. Following the said decisions, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
5. There will be no order as to costs.
6. 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.