perquisites in salary judiciary-2

Non-charging of interest on loan to director – Perquisite?

DCIT Vs Shri Shekhar G. Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Non-charging of interest on the loan amount given by lending company to its director could not be a perquisite as no remuneration or salary in the capacity of the director had been drawn from the lending company nor any interest expenditure was shown in its profit and loss account....

Read More

TDS U/s. 192 deductible on car running & maintenance expenses paid to staff

TCG Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

TCG Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)  In the present case, the requisite details as specified in Clause (B) of sub-rule 2 of rule 3 of Income Tax Rules 1962 were not maintained by the assessee and this being the undisputed position, we find ourselves in agreement with the authorities below that the value […]...

Read More

Relief U/s. 89 available in respect of any arrear related to a Perquisite

Rajesh Kumar Vs. ACIT (ITAT Agra)

Rajesh Kumar vs. ACIT (ITAT Agra) Section 17(1) defines ‘salary’ and ‘perquisite’ separately for the purposes of sections 15 and 16. Section 15 is the charging section qua income from salary, whereas section 16 deals with deduction there-from. Section 17(1)(iv) says that ‘salary’ includes, inter alia, perquisites. Relief u/s 8...

Read More

Foreign Business Tour by Non-Employee Director/Shareholder of Company not taxable as Perquisite

Mrs Kinty Suri Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

Assessee was a non-employee director and share holder in the company and no salary or director’s fees was paid to her by the company during the year under consideration....

Read More

Rent-Free Accommodation cannot be taxed if Salary is NIL

ITO Vs Sri Raghu Nandan Modi (ITAT Kolkata)

As the assessee was not drawing any salary from POL then in our considered view the perquisites cannot be determined in terms of the provision of Sec. 17(2) r.w.r. 3 of the Rules. ...

Read More

Reimbursement of medical expense is not perquisite u/s 17(2)

Rajkamal R. Bajaj v/s ADDL. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Brief facts of the case are that The assessee received a sum of Rs.90,090/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses from the company M/s Bajaj Consultants Pvt. Ltd., wherein, he is a Director and claimed the same as exempt u/s 17(2) of the Act. ...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,692)
Company Law (7,673)
Custom Duty (8,724)
DGFT (4,627)
Excise Duty (4,527)
Fema / RBI (4,815)
Finance (5,184)
Income Tax (38,465)
SEBI (4,133)
Service Tax (3,782)

Search Posts by Date

September 2021