Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. - (1.) On the oral application of the learned advocate for the revenue, the name of the respondent in the cause title is changed to Britannia Industries Company Ltd.
(2.) In this reference, we are posed with a short point, viz.: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and of Rule 3(c)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the perquisite of free car provided to the employees should be Rs. 150 per month in respect of each employee to whom the free use of the assessee's car was provided ?"
(3.) This reference, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-IV, Calcutta, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1966-67. For this assessment year, the assessee, which is a limited company, claimed that the value of the perquisite of free car provided to the employees should be worked out under Rule 6D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The ITO, however, did not agree with the assessee-company and, instead, held that the value of the perquisite of the free car provided to employees should be 50 per cent. of the expenditure on running and maintenance of the car and on this basis the ITO worked out the addition in excess of the ceiling laid down under Section 40(c)(iii).;