TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies petitioner's declaration due to lack of factual particulars in affidavit; association members may present facts to AO.</h1> <h3>All India Union Bank Officers Federation Versus Union Bank of India and Ors.</h3> All India Union Bank Officers Federation Versus Union Bank of India and Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Whether the difference between deductions made from the salary income of officers of a public sector bank due to residential accommodation provided by the bank and 10% of the salary constitutes a perquisite under section 17(2) of the IT Act.Analysis:The petitioner, an association of officers of a nationalized bank, sought a mandamus to prevent the Chief CIT and the CWT, as well as their employer, from treating the mentioned difference as a perquisite under the IT Act. The affidavit filed lacked factual details, focusing more on legal arguments without a factual foundation.The counsel for the employer bank argued that when the employer owns the accommodation provided to its officers, the employer's determination of the rent rate cannot be considered concessional. However, in cases where the employer hires accommodation and provides it to the employee at a lower rate than what the employer pays, the difference constitutes a concession and a perquisite under section 17(2) of the IT Act.Section 17(2) of the IT Act defines perquisite inclusively, covering rent-free accommodation and concessions in rent. The valuation of such perquisites is governed by Rule 3 of the IT Rules. The judgment emphasizes that employers providing housing to employees as a welfare measure is common practice and that not all provided accommodations are necessarily owned by the employer.The judgment highlights that employers offering accommodations to employees do so for employee welfare, not solely for profit. The difference between market rent and the rate charged to employees for employer-owned accommodation should not be treated as a perquisite. The judgment also notes the absence of a defined term for 'concessional' in the rules and the need for factual verification by the AO.The court ruled that the petitioner's declaration cannot be granted due to lack of factual particulars in the affidavit. However, members of the petitioner association can present relevant facts to the AO when required. The judgment reserves the right for the association to collectively represent to the CBDT, which will consider the matter lawfully. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs incurred.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
