TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the concessional interest-bearing loans granted by the employer to employees for house purchase and share purchase constituted a taxable perquisite under section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether interest credited by a recognised provident fund to the assessees' accounts was eligible for relief under section 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): Whether the concessional interest-bearing loans granted by the employer to employees for house purchase and share purchase constituted a taxable perquisite under section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The loans were available only to selected employees on application and on stipulated conditions, carried mortgage or pledge security, and were repayable with interest. The arrangement was treated as a collateral commercial transaction and not as a term of employment. The Court found that no measurable concession was established by objective data, no borrowed funds diversion by the employer was shown, and the statutory scheme and valuation rules then in force did not provide any guideline for treating such loan assistance as a perquisite. Applying the scheme of section 17(2) and the principle of ejusdem generis, the Court held that the impugned loan assistance did not fall within the class of taxable benefits or amenities contemplated by the provision.
Conclusion: The additions treating the loan assistance as a perquisite were not sustainable and the finding was in favour of the assessees.
Issue (ii): Whether interest credited by a recognised provident fund to the assessees' accounts was eligible for relief under section 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The Court accepted that interest retains its character as interest income even if assessed under the head of salary, and held that the relevant question was whether the income answered the description of interest eligible for section 80L relief. Following the later High Court view relied upon before it, the Court held that the representative character of the provident fund trustees did not destroy the character of the interest in the hands of the beneficiaries. The amount credited to the assessees therefore remained interest income capable of qualifying for relief, subject to computation by the assessing authority.
Conclusion: The claim for section 80L relief was allowable in principle and was in favour of the assessees.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on both substantive issues, with the disputed loan-related additions deleted and section 80L relief directed to be worked out by the assessing authority.
Ratio Decidendi: A repayable employer loan on commercial terms, unsupported by objective valuation norms and not shown to confer a measurable employment-linked benefit, is not a taxable perquisite under section 17(2); and interest retains its character as interest income for section 80L relief notwithstanding assessment under salary head when received through a provident fund trust.
TaxTMI 
