Sponsored

Reimbursement of medical expense is not perquisite u/s 17(2)

CA Prarthana Jalan 20 Jan 2015 23,110 Views 0 comment Print Income Tax | Judiciary

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rajkamal R. Bajaj v/s ADDL. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Appeal Number : ITA No.4138/MUM/2012

Date of Judgement/Order : 07/01/2015

Related Assessment Year : 2008-09

Courts : All ITAT ITAT Mumbai

Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

Sponsored

CA Prarthana Jalan

Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT has in the case of Mr. Rajkamal R. Bajaj v/s ACIT has held that Reimbursement of a medical expense is not perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act. Brief facts of the case are that The

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Tags:

Kindly Refer to Privacy Policy & Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.

Author Bio

Name: CA Prarthana Jalan

Qualification: CA in Practice

Company: N/A

Location: Uttar Pradesh, IN

Member Since: 28 May 2018 | Total Posts: 134

View Full Profile

My Published Posts

Landmark SC Judgment on TOLA & for 90000 Income Tax Reassessment cases Guidelines for Condonation of Delay in Income Tax Refund Claims Bombay HC imposes a penalty on JAO & CCIT for disregarding a prior judgment Issuance & service of section 143(2) notice after filing of ROI is sine-qua-non for framing assessment PAN-Aadhaar Linkage failure: Higher TDS/TCS Exemption for Deceased Deductees View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

0 Comments

Trinesh says:

Is it applies for salaried employees. Because the specified case is applicable for director, is not an employee.. clarify

Reply

January 20, 2015 at 6:25 pm
Rockey says:

please tell me the treatment of Medical Allowance received by employee, whether it is exempt if yes then upto what extent, and whether employee required to furnished bill???

Reply

January 20, 2015 at 9:54 am