Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 17 "Perquisite" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      19 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 17 Perquisite.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Clause 17 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) defines "perquisite" for the Part dealing with salaries. It lists categories of benefits treated as perquisites, items excluded from that definition, and furnishes definitions relevant to valuation. The provision matters to employers, employees, and tax authorities because it determines when non-cash and certain employer-paid benefits are taxable as part of salary. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 17 forms part of the Bill's Part on Salaries and establishes the meaning of "perquisite" for the purposes of taxation under the head Salaries. The clause enumerates inclusions (sub-section (1)), exclusions (sub-section (2)), a limited special rule (sub-section (3)), and definitions (sub-section (4)). The text provides limited definitional guidance for key terms such as "fair market value," "family" (by reference to Schedule III Note 2), "gross total income" (by reference to section 122(10)), "hospital," "option," "specified security," and "sweat equity shares." Methods of computation and several operational aspects are left to be prescribed or specified by subordinate rules.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 17(1) lists specific items that shall be treated as perquisites: rent-free accommodation and concessional accommodation where value exceeds rent recoverable or payable (clauses (a) and (b)); benefits or amenities granted free or at concessional rates in two sub-categories (clause (c)); specified securities or sweat equity shares allotted/transferred free or at concessional rates (clause (d)); "any other benefit or amenity" as prescribed (clause (e)); sums paid by the employer in respect of obligations which would otherwise be payable by the assessee (clause (f)); employer-paid life assurance or annuity premiums except contributions to recognised provident funds, approved superannuation funds, or specified deposit-linked insurance funds (clause (g)); employer contributions in excess of Rs. 750,000 in a tax year to a recognised provident fund/scheme in section 124(1)/approved superannuation fund (clause (h)); and annual accretion (interest, dividend or similar) to the balance of those funds to the extent relating to the excess contribution (clause (i)).

      Clause 17(2) lists exclusions from the perquisite definition-medical treatment in employer-maintained hospitals; employer payments of employee-incurred medical expenses in specified government/local authority/approved hospitals or for prescribed diseases in hospitals approved by Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner having regard to guidelines; portions of employer-paid health insurance premiums under schemes approved for section 30(c); employer payments of employee-paid health insurance premiums under schemes approved for section 126; employer expenditure on use of a vehicle for commute between residence and office; employer expenditure on medical treatment abroad, travel and stay abroad for treatment, and travel and stay of one attendant-subject to conditions in subsection (3).

      Clause 17(3) conditions the exclusions in sub-clause (2)(f): medical treatment and stay abroad excluded only to the extent permitted by the Reserve Bank of India; travel exclusion applies only in relation to employees whose gross total income (computed before including the expenditure) does not exceed an amount as prescribed.

      Interpretation

      The Bill adopts a largely enumerative approach: a wide variety of employer-provided benefits are captured expressly as perquisites, many of which leave valuation methods to be prescribed. The presence of specific carve-outs for certain employer expenditures (notably employer-provided medical treatment and certain insurance premiums) indicates legislative intent to exclude from perquisite treatment certain welfare-type expenditures or employer arrangements approved under specified statutory schemes. The cross-references to sections 30(c), 122(10), and 124(1), and to Schedule III reflect an intent to integrate perquisite treatment with existing constructs in the tax code. The Bill repeatedly delegates valuation methodology and thresholds to subordinate rules ("as prescribed"/"as specified"), indicating reliance on delegated legislation for operationalisation.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The key exceptions are in sub-section (2): multiple categories of medical treatment and approved insurance arrangements are excluded; commuting vehicle expenditure is excluded; and specific foreign medical treatment/travel exclusions are carved out subject to the conditions in sub-section (3). There are no express provisos for timing, retrospective application, or grandfathering in the text. Thresholds for exclusion tied to gross total income are delegated to prescription.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An employer provides rent-free accommodation to an employee. That accommodation's value must be computed as a perquisite under clause (a) in the manner prescribed. (Valuation method: Not stated in the document.)

      • Example 2: A company allots sweat equity shares to an employee at a discount. Clause (d) treats the fair market value on exercise date less amounts paid/recovered from the employee as a perquisite. (Computation specifics: Not stated in the document.)

      • Example 3: An employer pays an employee's hospital bill incurred at a government hospital. Clause (2)(b)(i) excludes such a payment from perquisite. (Limits or documentation required: Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      Clause 17 cross-references other statutory provisions-section 122(10) for gross total income, section 124(1) for certain provident fund schemes, and section 30(c) and section 126 for approved insurance schemes. The Bill contemplates subordinate rules to prescribe valuation methodology and thresholds; the precise interaction with existing rules/notifications is therefore dependent on those future prescriptions. The text does not state interplay with income-tax rules currently in force or transitional treatment for existing arrangements. Not stated in the document: detailed procedural interaction with Forms, reporting obligations, or timing of inclusion in income.

      Differences Between Section 17 (Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]) and Clause 17 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version)

      • Clarification on scope of clause (c)(ii): The enacted Section 17 inserts the bracketed qualification "[other than employee referred in sub-clause (i)]" into clause (c)(ii), whereas the Bill version lacks that exclusion. Practical impact: removes potential overlap by ensuring that company directors or those with substantial interest (covered by clause (c)(i)) are not also captured under clause (c)(ii)'s income-threshold-based catch-all. This reduces risk of double-counting and narrows the population subject to clause (c)(ii).
      • Prescriptive language differences: The Act generally uses "as may be prescribed" in several places (e.g., computation of rent-free accommodation, fair market value), whereas the Bill often used "as prescribed" or "as specified." Practical impact: "as may be prescribed" signals explicit delegated-legislation power and may be read as emphasising reliance on future rules; "as prescribed" in the Bill conveyed a similar idea but the shift may be stylistic and reinforces the expectation of rules to prescribe methods.
      • Guidance/approval language in medical approvals: Sub-section (2)(b)(ii) in the Bill referred to hospitals approved "having regard to such guidelines as specified"; the Act refers to approval "having regard to such guidelines as may be issued in this behalf." Practical impact: the Act expressly contemplates guidelines to be issued (i.e., an enabling formulation), thereby clarifying the administrative mechanism for approvals and potentially expanding administrative discretion to issue guidelines.
      • Minor drafting and punctuation differences: Several minor differences exist (e.g., phrasing around "computed in such manner, as prescribed" vs "computed in such manner as may be prescribed"; numeric representation "seven lakh and fifty thousand rupees" vs "Rs. 750000"). Practical impact: largely stylistic; numeric representation in the Act may be clearer for readers of consolidated statute.
      • Definitions and examples (stylistic): The definition of "specified security" in the Act includes a slightly different connective phrase regarding employee stock option plans ("therefor" vs omission). Practical impact: no substantive change in meaning apparent from the texts provided; primarily drafting refinement.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in text: Employers must identify and value a broad set of benefits as perquisites, subject to prescribed methods; failure to apply the prescribed valuation (when framed) risks misclassification. Particular focus should be on accommodation benefits, securities/sweat equity allocations, and aggregate employer contributions to retirement funds exceeding Rs. 750,000.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies need to maintain records supporting valuation and the amounts recovered from employees for securities/shares (clause (4)(h)); records evidencing hospital maintenance/approval, approvals for insurance schemes, and the quantum and nature of employer-paid medical or travel expenses will be relevant. Exact documentary requirements: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 17 provides an inclusive list of benefits to be treated as perquisites for salary taxation, capturing accommodation, securities/shares, employer-paid obligations, insurance premiums, and excess retirement contributions.
      • Several exclusions are provided, particularly for employer-provided medical treatment and certain approved insurance schemes; exclusions for foreign medical treatment/travel are conditional.
      • Valuation methods and some operational thresholds are delegated to subordinate prescription or specification; the Bill itself does not provide computational details.
      • Cross-references to existing statutory provisions indicate integration with recognised provident fund and insurance approval frameworks, but detailed interplay awaits rules/notifications.
      • Employers and employees should expect future rules to specify valuation methods, prescribed thresholds, and potentially documentary/compliance processes; the Bill leaves significant operational detail to be prescribed.

      Full Text:

      Section 17 Perquisite.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax