<?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>1961 (1) TMI 90 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276676</link>
    <description>Employer contributions paid into a trust for a deferred annuity were not taxable as salary perquisites under section 7(1) because the employees had no present vested right or immediate entitlement in the employer&#039;s share during the accounting year. The amounts were not &quot;allowed to&quot; or &quot;due to&quot; the employees, since their benefit depended on retirement or other contingent events under the deed and rules. A deferred annuity was also outside paragraph (v) of Explanation 1 to section 7(1), which was read as referring to an ordinary annuity and not an expressly deferred, contingent benefit. The references were therefore answered in favour of the employees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:47:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (1) TMI 90 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276676</link>
      <description>Employer contributions paid into a trust for a deferred annuity were not taxable as salary perquisites under section 7(1) because the employees had no present vested right or immediate entitlement in the employer&#039;s share during the accounting year. The amounts were not &quot;allowed to&quot; or &quot;due to&quot; the employees, since their benefit depended on retirement or other contingent events under the deed and rules. A deferred annuity was also outside paragraph (v) of Explanation 1 to section 7(1), which was read as referring to an ordinary annuity and not an expressly deferred, contingent benefit. The references were therefore answered in favour of the employees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>