<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (1) TMI 22 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13852</link>
    <description>An employer&#039;s payment of Rs. 36,000 for a deferred annuity policy for an employee&#039;s benefit was treated as taxable salary-related income, falling within the scope of &quot;profits in lieu of salary&quot; and a perquisite. The analysis turned on the breadth of salary-related income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the retrospective insertion of clauses (iiia) and (iiib) in section 2(24), which expanded the taxable character of such benefits. On that basis, the deferred annuity premium was held assessable in the employee&#039;s hands as a taxable employment benefit, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:48:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 22 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13852</link>
      <description>An employer&#039;s payment of Rs. 36,000 for a deferred annuity policy for an employee&#039;s benefit was treated as taxable salary-related income, falling within the scope of &quot;profits in lieu of salary&quot; and a perquisite. The analysis turned on the breadth of salary-related income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the retrospective insertion of clauses (iiia) and (iiib) in section 2(24), which expanded the taxable character of such benefits. On that basis, the deferred annuity premium was held assessable in the employee&#039;s hands as a taxable employment benefit, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13852</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>