a necessary disbursement. Reference was also made to Rendell v. Went17, wherein the House held that ‘perquisite’ would include any benefit or advantage, having a monetary value, which a holder of an office derives from the employer’s spending on his behalf. 17. Similarly, in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bharat V. Patel18, this Court held that ‘perquisite’, in the common parlance relates to any perk or benefit attached to an employee or position besides salary or remuneration. It usually includes non-cash benefits given by the employer to the employee in addition to the entitled salary or remuneration. 18. Thus, ‘perquisite’ is a fringe benefit attached to the post held by the employee unlike ‘profit in lieu of salary’, which is a reward or recompense for past or future service. It is incidental to employment and in excess of or in addition to the salary. It is an advantage or benefit given because of employment, which otherwise would not be available. 19. From this