Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5661 to 5680 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Medical reimbursement up to Rs. 15,000 per employee per annum was held not liable to Fringe Benefit Tax in the employer's hands because a tax charge must rest on clear charging language and cannot be imposed by implication. The Court followed the Karnataka High Court's view that the amount exempt in the employee's hands under the relevant income-tax provision is not subject to FBT, while any reimbursement above that limit may attract tax. The assessment orders levying FBT on reimbursements up to the threshold were set aside.
Medical reimbursement up to Rs. 15,000 per employee per annum was held not liable to Fringe Benefit Tax in the employer's hands because a tax charge must rest on clear charging language and cannot be imposed by implication. The Court followed the Karnataka High Court's view that the amount exempt in the employee's hands under the relevant income-tax provision is not subject to FBT, while any reimbursement above that limit may attract tax. The assessment orders levying FBT on reimbursements up to the threshold were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.