1. assessee is employee of Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. He received house building loan of Rs. 65,000 on 12-3-1975 from employer at concessional rate of interest of three and half per cent per annum. According to ITO, prevailing market rate of interest varied from 12 to 15 per cent per annum. He proceeded to treat difference between 12 per cent being market rate and three and half per cent being rate at which interest was charged by employer, namely, eight and half per cent as perquisite in hands of assessee under section 17(2)(iii)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. On appeal by assessee before that AAC, AAC relied on some decisions of Tribunal and held that loan given by employer to assessee at concessional rate of interest did not constitute perquisite in hands of employee. 3. revenue is in appeal against order of AAC on this issue. Conflicting decisions of Tribunal have been placed before me on behalf of parties in support of appeal on behalf of revenue and against it. On behalf of assessee, however, my attention was invited to letter No. 200/65/77-IT (A-I), dated 8-8-1977 from Board wherein clear direction has been given that loans given by company for purpose of house building at low rate of interest would not constitute perquisite. On behalf of revenue, my attention was invited to another letter No. 200/133/83-IT (A-I), dated 7-12- 1983 from Board referring to earlier letter dated 8-8-1977 stating that loans given by company for purpose of house building at low rate of interest would not constitute perquisite and it has been directed in this letter that earlier letter stands withdrawn with immediate effect. It was submitted that AAC's decision was erroneous in light of subsequent letter of Board dated 7-12-1983. 4. I have carefully considered submissions on either side. Irrespective of view expressed by various Benches of Tribunal in favour of or against revenue on question whether such concessional interest constitute perquisite under section 17(2)(iii)(c), I have to examine here applicability of Board's letter dated 8-8-1977 to facts of case. AAC, has decided appeal on 16-7-1983. income-tax assessment has been made after August 1977. Board's letter dated 8-8-1977 was in force when ITO made assessment and also when AAC decided appeal. During this period this Board's letter was in force. As observed by learned judges of Supreme Court in case of Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K. K. Sen, AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198 and again in case of Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 913, instructions issued by Board under section 119 of Act were binding on authorities working under them. In circumstances, ITO should not have proceeded to tax income attributable to concessional advance as perquisite in hands of assessee. latter instructions from Board dated 7-12-1983 are with 'immediate effect' that means from date of said letter, i.e., 7-12-1983. They would not affect proceedings under consideration before me today. In circumstances, order of AAC calls for no interference, though for different reasons. 5. In result, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed. *** FIFTH INCOME TAX OFFICER v. A.M. VAISHNAV