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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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