https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8296 Premium paid by an employer for personal accident insurance covering a director-employee was analysed under section 7(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and its explanations. The payment was not treated as a perquisite because the policy was taken primarily for the employer's protection, there was no obligation on the employee to pay the premium, and the premium did not amount to a free benefit or amenity. It also did not fall within the category requiring substantial interest, and the employee acquired no vested right to the amount, since any benefit remained contingent on an accident occurring. The premium was therefore not taxable as a perquisite. en-us Thu, 11 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8296 Premium paid by an employer for personal accident insurance covering a director-employee was analysed under section 7(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and its explanations. The payment was not treated as a perquisite because the policy was taken primarily for the employer's protection, there was no obligation on the employee to pay the premium, and the premium did not amount to a free benefit or amenity. It also did not fall within the category requiring substantial interest, and the employee acquired no vested right to the amount, since any benefit remained contingent on an accident occurring. The premium was therefore not taxable as a perquisite. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Mar 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8296