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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the premium paid by the employer on a personal accident insurance policy taken for a director-employee constituted a perquisite within the meaning of section 7(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: The premium was examined under the relevant parts of Explanation 1 to section 7(1). Clause (iv) did not apply because the policy was taken by the employer for its own protection and there was no obligation on the assessee to pay the premium himself if the employer did not do so. Clause (iii) also did not apply because the payment of premium for cover against an uncertain accident risk did not amount to a benefit or amenity granted free of cost to the assessee. Clause (ii) was inapplicable because there was no material to show that the assessee had the kind of substantial interest in the company contemplated by section 2(6C)(iii). The payment did not create any vested right in the assessee; at the highest, any benefit under the policy was contingent on an accident occurring.
Conclusion: The premium paid by the employer was not a perquisite under section 7(1) and the answer was in the negative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: An employer's payment of premium for personal accident insurance, taken primarily to protect the employer against liability, is not a taxable perquisite in the employee's hands unless the employee has a vested right to the amount or the payment falls within a specific statutory category under section 7(1).