Judgment 1. These two writ petitions are by the respective staff associations of M/s Aditya Cement and M/s Birla White Cement Plants which are two separate and independent units of Grasim Industries Ltd. The issue raised and the reliefs claimed, in both these writ petitions are identical and hence, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order. The reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions are identical and as under (i) TheNotification No. S.O. 940(E), dt. 25th Sept., 2001, reported in(2002) 251 ITR(St) 81(Annexure 1)be quashed as violative of Arts. 14, 300A, 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Section 17(2)(vi) as Parliament has delegated without authority of law and without any guideline, to select the items of perquisites and the valuation thereof to the executive and the rule-framing authority be quashed and declared ultra vires the Constitution. (iii) The assessing authorities constituted under the IT Act to permanently refrain from enforcement of the Notification No. S.O. 940(E), dt. 25th Sept., 2001. (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be issued. 2. From the perusal of the above reliefs claimed by the petitioners in the context of impugned Notification dt. 25th Sept., 2001, it is apparent that these reliefs relate to computation of taxable income of the members of the respective petitioner-associations who are in employment with IVils Aditya Cement and M/s Birla White Cement, respectively, under the head ‘income from salaries’, which is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act, 1961, (for short ‘the Act’). More particularly, the contentions relate to valuation of the perquisites, which form part of salaries, according to the rules framed for that purpose. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is with reference to the insertion of Clause (vi) in Section 17(2) w.e.f 1st April, 2002, by the Finance Act, 2001, and amendment in Rule 3 of the IT Rules, 1962, vide Notification, d 25th Sept., 2001, which has been brought into force w.e.f 1st April, 2001. The insertion of Clause (vi) in Section 17(2) of the Act has been challenged on the ground of excessive delegation of the legislative authority of the Parliament. The insertion of Clause (vi) in Section 17(2) of the Act has been challenged on the ground of excessive delegation of the legislative authority of the Parliament. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by allowing the rule-making authority to prescribe ‘any other fringe benefit or amenity’ to be included in the perquisites and to provide for its value to be included in total taxable income of the assesses is without any guidelines. It has been left to the rule-making authority to select the items of ‘fringe benefits’ and ‘amenities’ and prescribe method and mode of valuation thereof , which amounts to abdication of essential legislative function of Parliament to subordinate legislation. The amendment in the Rules of 1962 vide Notification, dt. 25th Sept., 2001, has been assailed on two-fold grounds. Firstly that such an amendment has been brought to give effect to insertion of Clause (vi) in Section 17(2) of the Act. Clause (vi) itself has been inserted in Section 17(2) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2001, w.e.f 1st April, 2002, only. Framing of the impugned rules to be operative w.e.f 1st April, 2001, results in giving effect to the substantive provision w.e.f 1st April, 2001 when the substantive provision itself is to come into force w.e.f 1st April, 2002. It shows total lack of application of mind by the rule-framing authority to the task which has been entrusted to it. Secondly, the basis of computation of income to be taxed for the asst. yr. 2001-02 which is earned in previous year relevant asst. yr. 200 1-02 i.e., financial year ending on 31st March, 2001, cannot be altered retrospectively as ex hypothesi, the tax on such income stands determined on close of the previous year in which the income of the assessee is earned as per the law prevalent at the time when taxing event took place. Learned counsel contends that law as it stands on 1st of April, 2001, at the commencement of the asst. yr, 2001-02, with reference to which income is to be assessed, is applicable, for computing taxable income of any assessee for the asst, yr. 2001-02. The basis of computing the value of perquisites, while computing the total taxable income for the asst. yr. 200 1-02 has been altered by giving effect to the amended rules retrospectively, w.e.f 1st April, 2001. yr, 2001-02, with reference to which income is to be assessed, is applicable, for computing taxable income of any assessee for the asst, yr. 2001-02. The basis of computing the value of perquisites, while computing the total taxable income for the asst. yr. 200 1-02 has been altered by giving effect to the amended rules retrospectively, w.e.f 1st April, 2001. This retrospectivity, according to the learned counsel, is not only contrary to law relating to assessment of income for any particular assessment, but results in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as it is unreasonable and also discriminatory. In this connection, it has been urged that in the application of rules, the two persons who are not similarly situated are treated at par and two persons who are similarly situated may not be treated at par, which results in violation of Article 14 substantively. For example, Rule 3 provides strait-jacket formula of valuing perquisite relating to rent-free house accommodation provided by an employer at fixed percentage of salary without reference to geographical situation of accommodation results in two wholly differently valued house accommodation to be valued at par, so conversely when two employees drawing different pay are allotted free accommodation of same size, quality and at same site, lends themselves paying different tax, because value of same perquisite being determined at different level depending upon level of salary. It is urged value of like perquisite for two persons cannot be different, but this difference takes place due to Rule 3 as substituted vide amendment in question. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has urged that amendments brought into the Act as well as the Rules are valid. By insertion of Clause (vi) in Section 17(2) of the Act, no new liability has been imposed. It has only been clarified that fringe benefits or amenities which form part of perquisites, their value as may be prescribed by rules for being included in the computation of total income of the assessee under the head of ‘Salaries’. He contended that the rules can be framed retrospectively as the rule-making authority has been conferred with specific powers to frame the rules retrospectively by parent legislation. He contended that the rules can be framed retrospectively as the rule-making authority has been conferred with specific powers to frame the rules retrospectively by parent legislation. The contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue is that in fact, the question of retrospectivity about applicability of Rules, which has been brought into force w.e.f 1st April, 2001, really does not arise and does not affect the members of the petitioners’ associations in any maimer. It has been left at the option of the taxpayers to be governed by the unamended rules for the period upto the date of notification for the asst. yr. 200 1-02 or by the amended rules. Therefore, it is for the assessee to choose such method of valuation of perquisites for the asst. yr. 2001-02, which appears to him more beneficial. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the Revenue that in taxing statute, more latitude has been given to the persons entrusted with the implementation of the fiscal statute to fill in the details once the subject of levy has been specified clearly by the parent statute. Impugned Amendment 5. Vide Finance Act, 2001, following Clause (vi) has been inserted in Sub-section (2) of Section 17 after existing Clause (v): “The value of any other fringe benefit or amenity as may be prescribed”. Here it may be noticed to clarify that in the Finance Bill, 2001, aforesaid clause was numbered as Clause (viii) to be inserted after existing Clause (vii). Clause (vi) was originally inserted vide Act No. 47/1984 w.e.f 1st April, 1985, in different form to state that where an employer advances interest-free loan or loan at concessional rate to any employee for the purpose of building a house or purchasing a site or a house and site or for purchase of a motor car, value of such benefit be included in the income of such employee by valuing the advantage so received with reference to rate of interest notified by Central Government in that regard. However, employees of Central Government and State Government were exempted from the rigour of this provision so also person drawing cash emolument less than Rs. 18,000 p.a. were kept out of its operation. This new Clause (vi) however, did not come in operation at all as it was omitted by Act No. 32/1985 retrospectively w.e.f 1st April, 1985. .6. However, employees of Central Government and State Government were exempted from the rigour of this provision so also person drawing cash emolument less than Rs. 18,000 p.a. were kept out of its operation. This new Clause (vi) however, did not come in operation at all as it was omitted by Act No. 32/1985 retrospectively w.e.f 1st April, 1985. .6. Vide impugned notification, Rule 3 prescribing method and mode of determining monetary value of specified perquisites not received in cash has been substituted with new mode and method of determining monetary value of specified perquisites. .Scheme under the patent Act to tax “Income from salaries” .7. In order to appreciate the contentions, and the effect of amendments, it would be apposite to notice the scheme of IT Act particularly in the context of computing income under the head ‘Salaries’. .Once the scheme of computing the income under the head ‘Salaries’ and meaning of term ‘perquisites’ is properly understood, there is no room for argument to contend that insertion of Clause (vi) in Section 17(2) of the Act w.e.f 1st April, 2001, suffers from excessive delegation of essential legislative functions. 8. Section 4 of the Act is a charging section, which authorises levy of income-tax on any income of any person. It clearly provides that where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any assessment year at any rate or rates, income-tax at that rate or those rates shall be charged for that year in accordance with and subject to the provisions (including provisions for the levy of additional income-tax) of this Act in respect of the total income of the previous year of every person. The term ‘total income’ has been defined in Section 2(45) of the Act to mean the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Section 2(24) of the Act defines ‘Income’. The Act does not define the term ‘Income’ exhaustively but it provides inclusive definition. However, for the present purpose, attention is drawn to Clause (iii) of Section 2(24) of the Act, which provides that income includes the value of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary taxable under Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 17. This brings us to consider the scheme of computation of total income which is contained in Chapter IV of the Act. This brings us to consider the scheme of computation of total income which is contained in Chapter IV of the Act. Section 14 deals with heads of income. It provides that save as otherwise provided by this Act, all income shall, for the purposes of charge of income-tax and computation of total income, be classified under the following heads of income; A. Salaries. B. Interest on securities. [Omitted by Finance Act, 1988, w.e.f, 1st April, 1989] C. Income from house property. D. Profits and gains of business or profession. E. Capital gains. F. Income from other sources. The computation of income under the head of ‘Salaries’ has been dealt with in Part A of Chapter IV of the Act, which consists of Sections 15 to 17 of the Act, Section 15 deals with various factors which constitute the income chargeable to income-tax under the head ‘Salaries’. Section 16 deals with deduction from salaries. Details of these provisions need not detain us for the present purpose. Section 17 which is relevant for the present purpose defines ‘Salary’, ‘perquisite’ and ‘profits in lieu of salary’. Section 17 of the Act read as under: “Section 17. Section 16 deals with deduction from salaries. Details of these provisions need not detain us for the present purpose. Section 17 which is relevant for the present purpose defines ‘Salary’, ‘perquisite’ and ‘profits in lieu of salary’. Section 17 of the Act read as under: “Section 17. For the purposes of Sections 15 and 16 and of this section: .(1) “Salary includes; .(i) wages; .(ii) any annuity or pension; (iii) any gratuity; .(iv) any fees, commissions, perquisites or profits in lieu of or in addition to any salary or wages; .(v) any advance of salary; (va) any payment received by an employee in respect of any period of leave not availed of by him; (vi) the annual accretion to the balance at the credit of an employee participating in a recognised provident fund, to the extent to which it is chargeable to tax under Rule 6 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule; and (vii) the aggregate of all sums that are comprised in the transferred balance as referred to in Sub-rule (2) or Rule 11 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule of an employee participating in a recognised provident fund, to the extent to which it is chargeable to tax under Sub-rule (4) thereof .(2) ‘Perquisite’ includes .(i) the value of rent-free accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer; .(ii) thevalue of any concession in the matter of rent respecting any accommodation provided to the assessee by the employer; (iii) the value of any benefit or amenity granted or provided free of cost or at concessional rate in any of the following cases: .(a) by a company to an employee being a person who is a director thereof ; .(b) by a company to an employee being a person who has a substantial interest in the company; .(c) by any employer (including a company) to an employee to whom the provisions of paras (a) and (b) of this sub-clause do not apply and whose income under the head ‘Salaries’ (whether due from, or paid or allowed by, one or more employers), exclusive of the value of all benefits or amenities not provided for by way of monetary payment, exceeds fifty thousand rupees; Provided that nothing contained in this sub-clause shall apply to the value of any benefit provided by a company free of cost or at a concessional rate to its employees by way of allotment of shares, debentures of warrants directly or indirectly under any Employees’ Stock Option Plan or Scheme of the company offered to such employees in accordance with the guidelines issued in this behalf by the Central Government. Explanation : For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the use of any vehicle provided by a company or an employer for journey by the assessee from his residence to his office or other place of work, or from such office or place to his residence, shall not be regarded as a benefit or amenity granted or provided to him free of cost or at concessional rate for the purposes of this sub-clause. (iii) Omitted by the Finance Act, 2000, w.e.f 1st April, 2001. .(iv) any sum paid by the employer in respect of any obligation which, but for such payment, would have been payable by the assessee; and .(v) anysum payable by the employer, whether directly or through a fund, other than a recognised provident fund or an approved superannuation fund or a deposit-linked insurance fund established under Section 3G of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or as the case may be, Section 6C of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), to effect an assurance on the life of the assessee or to effect a contract for an annuity. .(vi) The value of any other fringe benefit or amenity as may be prescribed.” (Inserted by Finance Act, 2001, w.e.f 1st April, 2002). From the aforesaid, two things are very obvious. Firstly, that total income chargeable to tax had to be assessed for any assessment year. The income is one which is earned accrued or received by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which income is to be assessed to tax. Concept is of the total income earned during the year is determined at the end of the period. It is required to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The scheme of computing income under the various provisions of the Act has to be viewed wholesomely and not with isolated vision. Another thing which is obvious from the provisions referred to above is that computation of income under the head ‘Income from salaries’ is not confined to payment of periodical cash payment but is to be understood in its wider sense to include the valuation of any perquisite or profit in lieu of salary which he enjoys by dint of his employment under Section 2(24)(iii) nw Section 17(2) and (3) of the Act. 9. In the world of employment, emolument is the wholesome expression what one gets from the employer for services rendered in whatever term. It is wider than ‘salaries’ in the literal sense. Salary in narrower sense denotes only fixed periodical payment in cash, but does not include reimbursement fee, cash, kind or other advantages from the employer. In ordinary dictionary meaning, the word ‘salary’ means “fixed periodical payment for doing other than manual or mechanical work”. As per the Random House Dictionary of the English language “salary” has been defined as; “A fixed compensation periodically paid to a person by regular work or services specially work other than that of manual, mechanical or mental kinds. It has been described as synonymous to pay.” Salary in its narrower sense conveys fixed periodical payment in cash payable to a person by way of compensation for services rendered by him to other person whereas salary in its broad wholesome sense refers to all emoluments of the office of employment which not only include a fixed periodical payment but also includes all other benefits, profits and amenities attached to such employment whether in cash or in kind or in the form of personal advantage. The provision of computation of income from salary, goes to show that such income from salary refers to salary in its broad sense to include perquisites and profits in lieu of salary after these terms have been defined under Section 17 of the Act. The expression “perquisite” with reference to the emoluments of an employment has a well-defined connotation and is not a term of art. ‘Perquisites’ and fringe benefits’ as understood generally and as dealt with under taxing statute’ 10. If we look at the ordinary dictionary meaning of “perquisite”, it reflects anything benefit, amenity or profit, attached to office or entitlement under employment in addition to regular fixed payment of salary in its narrower sense. In Webster English International Dictionary its meaning is “A gain or profit incidentally made from employment in addition to regular salary or wages especially one of a kind expected or promised”. The Oxford Dictionary gives perquisite its meaning as “A casual emolument, fee or profit attached to an office or position in addition to salary or wages.” The Random House Dictionary of English Language says ‘perquisite’ to be: “An incidental employment fee or profit over and above fixed income, salary or wages. The Oxford Dictionary gives perquisite its meaning as “A casual emolument, fee or profit attached to an office or position in addition to salary or wages.” The Random House Dictionary of English Language says ‘perquisite’ to be: “An incidental employment fee or profit over and above fixed income, salary or wages. Also called perk, (Perq)”. By way of illustration it has enumerated, use of a servant, a servant’s customary right to claim used or discarded items, any bonus or fringe benefits granted to an employee as free use of company car. This is by no means exhaustive to encompass all that comes within the purview of term perquisite in its ordinary sense, as an incidental or additional emolument, benefit, amenity or advantage attached to office. By envisaging an inclusive definition of term ‘perquisite’ in the context of income from salary this generic meaning of perquisite is adopted by legislature. The word “perquisite” in juridicial expression has also received the connotation which gives expression “salary a broad spectrum coverage. Meriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law describes fringe benefits as ‘an employment benefit (as a pension, a paid holiday, or health insurance) granted by an employer that has a monetary value but that does not affect basic wage rates’. According to Blacks Law Dictionary, “perquisites” have been defined to mean: “Emoluments fringe benefits or other incidental profits or benefits attaching to an office or position. Shortened term “perks” used with reference to such extraordinary benefits conferred to business executives, e.g., free car, club membership, insurance, etc. etc.” Strouds Judicial Dictionary has explained “perquisites” in the context of the expression used in IT Act and fiscal statutes to mean “Perquisites” as used in IT Act, 1842 might have included a gratis residence by an employee in his employer’s house, although employee could not sublet it--but for the fact that construction was prevented by Rule 4 of the same Schedule which defined perquisite for all purposes which defines perquisites, Such profits of offices and employments as arise from fee and other emoluments and payable either by the Crown or by the State in the course of executing such office or employment. Perquisite means personal advantage and as used in Schedule II of para. 1 of the Finance Act, 1956, was held to include use of a car given to an, employee and return of wage reduction. Perquisite means personal advantage and as used in Schedule II of para. 1 of the Finance Act, 1956, was held to include use of a car given to an, employee and return of wage reduction. House of Lords in Owen vs. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) (1969) 74 ITR 147 (HL) said perquisite has a known normal meaning namely, a personal advantage. The word could not apply to a mere reimbursement of a necessary disbursement. 11. Section 17(1) of the Act, which defines ‘salary’ for the purpose of computing income from ‘salaries’ reveals that it has been used in wider sense of the term which includes not only periodical payment but emolument of service in all its forms. In this context keeping in view the definition of income under Section 2(24), term ‘perquisite’ has been defined comprehensively in Section 17(2) of the Act by way of an inclusive definition which has been reproduced hereinabove. It may be noticed that Section 17(2) which defines the term ‘perquisite’ does not define it exhaustively but provides an inclusive definition, It is well settled that when there is an inclusive definition, ordinarily the ordinary meaning of word prevails over and above the words of inclusive definition for the purposes of that statute. The scope of an inclusive definition cannot be restricted to those categories only which occur in the definition, but an inclusive definition will extend to so many other things ordinarily falling within the parent expression, which are not talked of in the section. The definition has tried to split the various types of perquisites attached with employment in three broad categories that may be within the sphere of expression ‘perquisites’ and form part of the taxable income under the head ‘salary’. However, one thing which as a common characteristic appears from the provision is that in order that such benefit, amenity or payment may be termed perquisite, it must be in pursuance of a right conferred on or option given to the employee to receive such benefit or advantage from his employer. Unless such advantage or benefit flows from the status of the person working as an employee as a matter of right or at his option to be exercised as an employee it cannot be termed as perquisite. Unless such advantage or benefit flows from the status of the person working as an employee as a matter of right or at his option to be exercised as an employee it cannot be termed as perquisite. The employee must have a vested right to claim advantage or benefit whether in cash or in kind, in order to fall within the purview of perquisite as part of salaries taxable under the IT Act. 12. Reference in this regard may be made to CIT vs. L.W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC) which explains the distinction between personal expenditure in insurance policy taken by the employee and reimbursement by the employer on the one hand and such insurance policy taken by the employer in order to meet the contingency of paying compensation for injuries or death. While in the former case, the reimbursement of payment made by the employee of the personal insurance policy taken voluntarily by him may amount to a perquisite, in the latter case it was held that the premium paid by the employer towards such policy was not assessable in the assessee-employee as perquisite because it could not be said that assessee had any vested right in the premium amount which the employer was so paying in respect of the policy. It was primarily for the employer’s own advantage to indemnify himself against possible liability. Construing Section 7(1) nw Expln. 1(v), of the Indian IT Act, 1922, which defined perquisite, in CIT vs. L.W. Russel(supra), the Supreme Court said: This section imposes a tax on the remuneration of an employee. It presupposes the existence of the relationship of employer and employee. The present case is sought to be brought under the head ‘perquisites in lieu of , or in addition to, any salary or wages, which are allowed to him by or are due to him, whether paid or not, from, or are paid by or on behalf of a company.’ The expression ‘perquisites’ is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as ‘casual emolument, fee or profit attached to an office or position in addition to salary or wages’. Expln. 1 to Sub-section (1) of the Act gives an inclusive definition. Expln. 1 to Sub-section (1) of the Act gives an inclusive definition. Clause (v) thereof includes within the meaning of ‘perquisites’ any sum payable by the employer, whether directly or through a fund to which the provisions of Chapters IX-A and IX-B do not apply, to effect an assurance on the life of the assessee or in respect of a contract for an annuity on the life of the assessee. A combined reading of the substantive part of Section 7(1) and Clause (v) of Expln. 1 thereto makes it clear that if a sum of money is allowed by the employee by or is due to him from or is paid to enable the latter to effect an insurance on his life, the said sum would be a perquisite within the meaning of Section 7(1) of the Act and, therefore, would be exigible to tax. But before such sum becomes so exigible, it shall either be paid to the employee or allowed to him by or due to him from the employer. So far as the expression ‘paid’ is concerned, there is no difficulty, for it takes in every receipt by the employee from the employer whether it was due to him or not. The expression ‘due’ followed by the qualifying clause ‘whether paid or not’ shows that there shall be an obligation on the part of the employer to pay that amount and a right on the employer to claim the same. The expression ‘allowed’, it is said is of a wider connotation and any credit made in the employer’s account is covered thereby. The word ‘allowed’ was introduced in the section by the Finance Act of 1955. The said expression in the legal terminology is equivalent to ‘fixed, taken into account, set apart, granted.’ It takes in perquisites given in cash or in kind or in money or money’s worth and also amenities which are not convertible into money. It implies that a right is conferred on the employee in respect of those perquisites. One cannot be said to allow a perquisite to an employee, if the employee has no right to the same. 13. We may notice that what was compositely expressed in Section 7 of 1922 Act,, has been compendiously made part of scheme of Sections 15 and 17 of the IT Act, 1961. One cannot be said to allow a perquisite to an employee, if the employee has no right to the same. 13. We may notice that what was compositely expressed in Section 7 of 1922 Act,, has been compendiously made part of scheme of Sections 15 and 17 of the IT Act, 1961. Section 15 of the Act of 1961, makes salaries due from an employer whether paid or not, or salary paid or allowed to him by the employer though not due to him or before it becomes due to him or arrears of salary paid or allowed to him by the employer during previous year. Section 17(1) defines salary to include amongst other things, wages, perquisites and profits in lieu of salary. Section 17(2) defines ‘perquisites’ as it was defined in Expln. 1 to Section 7(1) of the 1922 Act. Combined effect remains the same that before any benefit, amenity or payment can be included in salary as perquisite it must be under a vested right. Conversely any benefit or amenity unauthorisedly used by an employee is not a perquisite. It may though make him liable to restore to the employer such benefit or advantage unauthorisedly availed. 14. The inclusive definition of perquisite under Section 17(2) thus justifies the conclusion that meaning which should be assigned to the term ‘perquisite’ be its ordinary meaning and it must include all such benefits, amenities, advantages or payments which the assessee gets from his employer as entitlement. Any such benefit or amenity or advantage though not specifically stated in inclusive definition falls within the purview of term ‘perquisite’ unless excluded by statute or exempted by competent authority having power to do so. Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) deal with the particular advantage availed of by a person as an employee in the form of getting a rent-free accommodation or any accommodation, at concessional rent. There is no dispute about inclusion of the value of rent-free accommodation or the concession in rent in respect of any accommodation provided to the assessee by the employer, which as perquisite is to be included in computation of income from salaries. In fact, there is no dispute about the inclusion of value of any advantage, benefit or amenity falling under items No. (i) to (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 17. In fact, there is no dispute about the inclusion of value of any advantage, benefit or amenity falling under items No. (i) to (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 17. Closely looked Clause (iii) and Clause (iv) read together provide a wholesome scheme of including all benefits, the amenities extended to the assessee, or the expenses of the assessee borne by the employer which otherwise were to be borne by the employee are to be included in the taxable income of the person receiving the same as salary. Section 17(2)(iii) refers to value of any benefit or amenity provided free of cost or at a concessional rate to a person as a director of a company or to a person who is a joint director but he has substantial interest in the company within the meaning of Sub-section (32) of Section 2 and in respect of other employees who are in receipt of cash emoluments includible in salary, excluding the value of all benefits or amenities, exceeding Rs. 50,000. This limit has been increased from time to time. Clause (iv) of Sub-section (2) includes in its term all sums paid by the employer in respect of any obligation which but for such payment would have been payable by the assessee-employee. 15. By way of illustration we may notice that within the purview of this provision, the advantage to an assessee flowing from overdrawing of sums in addition to the salary on which no interest is charged or interest is charged at concessional rate, was held to be perquisite within the meaning of Section 17(2)(iii) in CIT vs. C. Kulandaivelu Konar (Decd.) By LRs. (1975) 100 ITR 629 (Mad). This was so held even without any provision like Clause (vi) as was inserted for the first time vide Taxation (Amendment) Act of 1984 (Act No. 67 of 1984) w.e.f, 1st April, 1985, which was never brought into operation as the same was omitted vide Act No. 32/1985 w.e.f 1st April, 1985. (1975) 100 ITR 629 (Mad). This was so held even without any provision like Clause (vi) as was inserted for the first time vide Taxation (Amendment) Act of 1984 (Act No. 67 of 1984) w.e.f, 1st April, 1985, which was never brought into operation as the same was omitted vide Act No. 32/1985 w.e.f 1st April, 1985. Likewise, where employer sold its motor-car at book value to an employee when the value of the car was at much higher price, the difference between the price at which car was sold to the employee and the value of the car which employee got on sale in the open market was held to be perquisite by Gujarat High Court in IT Ref , No. 76/1974, B.V. Bhatt vs. CIT decided on 19th Feb., 1975. 16. On the other hand, Clause (iv) of Sub-section (2) of Section 17 includes within expression perquisite any sum paid by the employer in respect of any expenditure which otherwise would have been payable by the employee. This provision has accounted in most general terms and includes all payment