The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in the case of Triton Holdings Ltd. vs Dy. Director of Income Tax, Deharadun (ITA Nos. 2541 to 2559/Del/2009) held that the tax paid by employer on the behalf of employees should be considered as a non-monetary perquisite in the hands of the employees for the purpose of claiming an exemption under section 10(10CC) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

In respect of shares acquired under stock option scheme, the difference between the price of shares at the time of exercise of option and the predetermined price is liable to tax as perquisite under s. 17(2)(iii) up to 31st March, 2000.

For someone who aspires for a hole-in-one as an amateur golfer, Adit Mathur has made a Tiger Woodsian debut on the job circuit. The 20-year-old undergrad of Shri RamCollege of Commerce (SRCC) is now the toast of Delhi University (DU) as he has teed in an offer from Deutsche Bank for an annual compensation package of Rs 32 lakh ($69,000). Mathur, a resident of Civil Lines in Delhi, will be trained in London next year for a plum posting abroad.

Where in the reasons recorded seeking reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer had failed to disclose as to how he had come to the finding and on the basis of which materials that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment; the reasons recorded were therefore, ex facie without any foundation and were in fact wholly baseless conclusion; accordingly, the notices issued against the assessee under sections 147/148 were to be quashed.

PICK-UP and drop transport facility provided by employers is not a perquisite and hence not liable to tax, according to a recent ruling by a tax tribunal. In a decision that has implications for the sectors such as BPO and IT, the Mumbai Income-Tax Apellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that companies providing such a facility were not liable to deduct tax on the expenditure incurred on it.

SUMMARY OF CASE LAW Transport facility provided to an employee from his residence to office and office to residence is not a perquisite within the meaning of section 17(2) of IT Act, 1961.

SUMMARY OF CASE LAW Section 17(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to amendment in 2007, did not contain any `deeming clause’ to deem rent paid less than 10 per cent or 7.5 per cent as a concession; in the absence of deeming the difference as perquisite, it is open to the [...]

Currently, certain prescribed fringe benefits provided by an employer to his employees are liable to FBT in the hands of the employer. Such fringe benefits are not included within the scope of ‘perquisites’ as defined in section 17. As FBT will now be abolished, ‘perquisites’ will include the following: 1. Presently, FBT is levied on [...]

32. Whether gross expenses or net expenses (i.e. net of recovery) are to be considered for the purposes of FBT? For example, part of the expenses on various items like travel, may be recovered from the employees. Therefore, whether FBT would be levied on the gross travel expenditure or on the ‘net’ travel expenditure’? Where [...]

SUMMARY OF THE CASE LAW Excess amount of tax deposited with the Central Government by the employer, over and above the amount due, and refunded to the employee, could not be treated either salary or taxable perquisite in the hands of the assessee-employee; the mere fact that as per the machinery of the Income-tax Act, [...]