Bombay H.C : tax borne by the employee is not part of the pay
High Court Of Bombay CIT Vs. Jaydev H. Raja Assessment Year : 1994-95 Section : 15 J.P. Devadhar And M.S. […]
Section 15
perquisites to employee
Sec. 17(2)
Delhi H.C : “perquisite” within the meaning of Section 17(2) and, therefore, in terms of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (for short, Rules) cannot be taken into consideration for computing value of the perquisite “rent free accommodation”
High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Telsuo Mitera Assessment Year : 2006-07 Section : 17(2) Sanjiv Khanna And R.V. Easwar,
Sec. 17(2), Section 17
Bombay H.C : Notional interest on deposits paid by employer to landlord cannot be taken into consideration while computing perquisite value of residential accommodation
High Court Of Bombay CIT-26 vs. Shankar Krishnan Assessment Year : 2001-02 Section : 17(2) J.P. Devadhar And K.K. Tated,
Section 15, Section 154, Section 17
Delhi H.C : Whether tax paid by employer in respect of ‘salary’ paid to expatriate employees is ‘salary’ under rule 3 of Income-tax Rules, 1962, for purpose of computing value of perquisites in respect of rent free accommodation provided to said employees
High Court Of Delhi Mitsubishi Corporation vs. CIT Assessment Years : 1996-97 To 1998-99 Section : 15,17,154 A.K. Sikri And
Section 15, Section 17, Section 192
Delhi H.C : the assessee was not an assessee in default for short/non-deduction of tax at source on account of banquet and restaurant tips collected and paid by it to its employees
High Court Of Delhi CIT , TDS vs. ITC Ltd. Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005 Section : 15,17, 192
