The High Court, following the Supreme Court’s decision in CIT  v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd(2018)255 Taxman 305/ 404 ITR 1 (SC)

held that the benefit or perquisite taxable under section 28(iv) must be in a non-monetary form; a benefit in the shape of money or cash is not covered. Accordingly, cash advances received by the assessee could not be added to its income under section 28(iv). The Court observed that since the issue was decided on this settled legal principle, the revenue’s contention regarding admission of additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was irrelevant. Further, regarding the disallowance of contributions made to temples, which the CIT(A) had deleted, the revenue again contended a violation of Rule 46A(3). The High Court, upon perusal of the record, found that no additional evidence was admitted and the CIT(A) had merely re-evaluated the same material that was before the Assessing Officer. It was thus held that no violation of Rule 46A(3) had occurred.