<?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>1993 (7) TMI 17 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20075</link>
    <description>An employer&#039;s valid remuneration arrangement that diverts commission into deferred annuity or life insurance benefits without conferring any present vested right on the employee prevents the amount from accruing as taxable salary or perquisite. The Gujarat High Court noted that the board resolutions and payment structure postponed accrual until the first annuity payment became due, so the sums were neither paid, allowed, nor due to the employees at that stage. It also rejected the argument that the arrangement was a colourable device, treating it as a postponement of income accrual rather than immediate receipt. The diverted amounts were therefore not includible in the employees&#039; total income until the right to receive them vested.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:42:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (7) TMI 17 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20075</link>
      <description>An employer&#039;s valid remuneration arrangement that diverts commission into deferred annuity or life insurance benefits without conferring any present vested right on the employee prevents the amount from accruing as taxable salary or perquisite. The Gujarat High Court noted that the board resolutions and payment structure postponed accrual until the first annuity payment became due, so the sums were neither paid, allowed, nor due to the employees at that stage. It also rejected the argument that the arrangement was a colourable device, treating it as a postponement of income accrual rather than immediate receipt. The diverted amounts were therefore not includible in the employees&#039; total income until the right to receive them vested.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>