TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Supreme Court upholds Income-tax Rule 3 on accommodation concessions for employees, clarifies taxpayer rights.</h1> The petition challenging the validity of rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules was disposed of by the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the rule as applicable to ... Perquisite u/s 17(2)(ii) of the Act – Where no concession in the matter of accommodation provided by the employer to the employees, the case was not covered by Section 17(2)(ii) of the Act, hence employee entitled to contend that case not covered u/s 17(2)(ii) of the Act Issues:Challenge to rule 3 of Income-tax Rules as ultra vires, Application of rule 3 to cases of concession in rent by employer, Interpretation of section 17(2)(ii) of Income-tax Act, Applicability of rule 3 to cases before 2001.Analysis:The petition was referred to the Full Bench due to similarity with a previous matter. In the previous case, rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, as amended, was challenged as ultra vires section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act and article 14 of the Constitution. The judgment in the previous case upheld the validity of rule 3 as a machinery provision applying to cases of concession in rent for accommodation provided by an employer to employees. It was clarified that the assessee can argue against the concession in accommodation to avoid coverage under section 17(2)(ii) of the Act.During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioners argued that the amended rule 3 does not apply to their case predating 2001. However, referencing the previous judgment, it was highlighted that even before the amendment to rule 3, section 17(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Act did not apply if no concession in accommodation was provided by the employer. The petition was disposed of based on the Supreme Court's interpretation, allowing the petitioners to assert that there was no concession in the accommodation provided by the employer, potentially excluding their case from the scope of section 17(2)(ii) of the Act.In line with the Supreme Court's explanation in the previous judgment, the current petition was resolved with a directive permitting the petitioners to argue against any concession in the accommodation provided by the employer to the employees. This direction allows the petitioners to contest that their case does not fall within the purview of section 17(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, based on the absence of any concession in the matter of accommodation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
