Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 17(2)

Sec. 17(2), Sec. 17(2)(iv)

Kerala H.C : Interest subsidy granted to the petitioners by the third respondent for the house building loans availed by the petitioners from various financial institutions is not perquisite coming under s. 17(2)

Avijit Das / June 12, 2006

High Court Of Kerala K. Rajendran Pillai & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 17(2)(iv), 192, Rule 3(7) […]

Sec. 17(2), Section 17, Section 192

Andhra Pradesh H.C : All the members of both the petitioners were the servants of the Government of India under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and by the creation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL for short) they became the employees of the BSNL from 1st Oct., 2000

Avijit Das / March 18, 2006

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh A.P. Circle Of All India Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Executives Association & Anr. vs. General

Sec. 17(2), Section 17, Section 192, Section 201

Uttaranchal H.C : Concessional accommodation facility provided by the employer to its employees cannot be construed to be perquisite

Avijit Das / December 2, 2005

High Court Of Uttaranchal CIT & ANR. vs. Chief Officer, State Bank Of India & Ors. Sections 17(2), 192, 201,

Sec. 17(2), Section 17

Kerala H.C : O.P. 10569 of 2003 and O.P. 8425 of 2002 were taken as the leading cases for argument. In O.P. 10569 of 2002 petitioners are officers of the third respondent scheduled bank. Respondents are (i) Union of India, (2) the CBDT, and (3) the Federal Bank.

Avijit Das / March 12, 2004

High Court Of Kerala Cochin Refineries Officers Association & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 17(2)(vi), 295(2)(c), Rule

Calcutta H.C : The admitted position is that under the service rules of the bank concerned, the officers, if so advised, may get the facilities and amenities of the use of the furniture to be supplied by the bank at a particular rate of hire charges

Avijit Das / December 16, 2003

High Court Of Calcutta Corporation Bank Officersâ€™ Organisation & Ors. vs. Corporation Bank & Ors. Section 17(2)(iii) Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta,

Sec. 17(2), Sec. 17(2)(ii)

Calcutta H.C : the sum arrived at on the aforesaid basis exceeds the fair rental value of the accommodation, the value of the perquisites to the assessee shall be limited to such fair rental value

Avijit Das / October 12, 2003

High Court Of Calcutta Coal Mines Officersâ€™ Association Of India & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 17(2)(ii),

Sec. 17(2), Sec. 17(2)(vi)

Allahabad H.C : The petitioner is also challenging the validity of s. 17(2)(vi) of the IT Act, 1961, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 on the ground that it has delegated essential legislative powers and that it is violative of Arts. 19(1) and 246 of the Constitution

Avijit Das / September 29, 2003

High Court Of Allahabad P.N. Tiwari & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 17(2)(vi), 295, 296, RULE 3

Sec. 17(2)(ii), Section 17

Calcutta H.C : The principal reason to support the claims of the petitioners in this group of writ petitions is based on the pronouncement of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Officers’ Association

Avijit Das / September 12, 2003

High Court Of Calcutta Coal Mines Officersâ€™ Association Of India & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 17(2)(ii),

Sec. 17(2), Sec. 256(2), Section 256

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the CIT(A)’s decision that conveyance allowance granted by the assessee to its employees was not perquisite under s. 17(2) of the IT Act, 1961, and consequently directing the AO to revise the demand created in respect of short payment of TDS and interest thereon ?

Avijit Das / August 26, 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Section 17(2), 256(2)

Sec. 17(2), Section 17

Madras H.C : The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the amendment made to r. 3 of the IT Rules, 1962, under the Notification No. S.O. 940(E), dt. 25th Sept., 2001 [(2001) 170 CTR (St) 64], w.e.f. 1st April, 2001.

Avijit Das / April 30, 2003

High Court Of Madras Bhel Executives/Officers Association & Ors. vs. DCIT & ORS. Sections 17(2), 295(2)(c), RULE 3 R. Jayasimha

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top