IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.124 of 1989 Date of decision: 16.09.2008 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana, Rohtak. -----Applicant Vs. M/s Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd., Faridabad. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue. Mr. A.C. Jain, Advocate for assessee. ----- ORDER: Following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench , New Delhi, arising out I.T.A. No.3218/1985 in respect of assessment year 1974- 75:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the addition of Rs.16,894/- on a/c of bonus paid to executives of the assessee-company was justified? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the HRA paid to the executives of the company could not be considered perquisite in terms of sec.40-A (5) of the I.T. Act, 1961? I.T.R. No.124 of 1989 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the traveling expenses of Shri H.S. Ingham are not covered by the provisions of Rule 6-D of the I.T. Act, 1961 and, therefore, nothing can be disallowed out of the said expenses? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that Rs.3,088/- being telephone expenses incurred by the company on the telephones provided at the residences of its executives could not be added to the assessee- company’s total income? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs.18,318/- being notional interest on interest free loans given to employees, could not be regarded as perquisite under sec.40-A(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961? 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.5,000/- made on account of maintenance of accommodation provided to Shri N. Nath?” The questions referred above except question Nos.1 and 6 are covered by our order passed today in I.T.R. Nos.80 to 82 of 1982 (M /s Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd., New Delhi v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana). The said questions are accordingly, decided in same terms. Even though the language of question No.1 is slightly different from question No.(x) in I.T.R. No.80 to 82 of 1982, the issue being identical, the said question will stand answered against the 2 I.T.R. No.124 of 1989 revenue and in favour of the assessee. Similarly, the language of question No.6 though slightly different, the said question in substance is identical to question Nos.(xxvi) and (xxviii) in I.T.R. Nos.80 to 82 of 1982 (M /s Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd., New Delhi v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Haryana). Moreover, this issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier judgments of this Court in CIT v. Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Limited (2002) 255 ITR 189. The reference is disposed of accordingly. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 16, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ashwani JUDGE 3