CA Prarthana Jalan
Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT has in the case of Mr. Rajkamal R. Bajaj c/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 assessee received a sum of Rs.90,090/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses from the company M/s Bajaj Consultants Pvt. Ltd., wherein, he is a Director and claimed the same as exempt u/s 17(2) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer in view of section 17(2)(vi) brought to tax by treating it as perquisite under the head income from salary and taxed accordingly.
The Ld CIT(A) restricted the exemption available u/s 17(2)(vi) of the Act amounting to Rs.15,000/- in place of actual expenses incurred at Rs.90,090/-, while calculating income under the head “income from salary” The claim of the assessee is that the assessee was admitted in the hospital to carry out angioplasty (angiography). The assessee also submitted the bills of hospital in support of its claim. The expenses were first incurred by the assessee for treatment of Coronary Angiography cost in Rs.90,090/- and claimed as medical reimbursement as per the provision of section 17(2), while computing the salary income. In view of these facts, the Hon’ble ITAT held that it is allowable expenses and cannot be said to be perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Author Bio

More Under Income Tax

Posted Under

Category : Income Tax (27898)
Type : Articles (17602) Featured (4025)

0 responses to “Reimbursement of medical expense is not perquisite u/s 17(2)”

  1. Trinesh says:

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

  2. 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???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Featured Posts