57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
-
Upload
sunil-pillai -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
1/25
pronouncement
relating to
SALARIELARIES
. .C o u rte sy | m an m o h an kolkata@ g m ailco m
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
2/25
Convile vs. CIT (1935) 3 ITR
404
Salary is the recompense or
consideration given to a personfor the pains he has bestowed
upon anothers business
. .Courtesy | manmohan kolkata@gmail com
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
3/25
CIT vs Govinda swaminathan233 ITR 264 (Mad)
Government, even thoughhe receives retainer fee
and his contract for servicedepends on pleasure of theGovernor. Such retainer feeshall be taxable under thehead Profits and gains ofbusiness or profession.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
4/25
CIT vs Dr. Mrs. Usha Verma (P&H-2002)
allowed to work in the payingclinic run in the college at
some share of fee from suchclinic. Such share of feereceived by employee-doctors
shall be taxable as salary,because the authority to work inthe clinic, fee of the clinic, share
of doctors, etc. were prescribedby the employer.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
5/25
CIT vs. M.N. Nadkarni (1986) 161ITR 544(BOM)
Amount of scholarship givenby employer company to
children to its employee solelyat its discretion without
reference to terms ofemployment is not assessableas perquisites.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
6/25
Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal vsUnion of India, 237 ITR 872 (SC)
Remuneration received
by judges is taxableunder the headSalaries even though
they are not having anyemployer.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
7/25
Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal vsUnion of India, 237 ITR 872 (SC)
Remuneration received by judges is taxable under thehead Salaries even though
they are not having anyemployer.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
8/25
Gestetner Duplicators (P.) ltd.vs CIT [1979] 117 ITR 1 (SC)
Salary & Wages areidentical in the
Income-tax Act
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
9/25
Reade v. Brearley (1933) 17 TC-687
Salary income
must be real andnot fictitious
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
10/25
CIT vs. Gian Singh Kalasi (1980)(Del)
earned by an
employee, itssubsequent waiverdoes not make itexempt from taxliability.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
11/25
CIT vs. Bawa Singh Chauhan(1984)150 ITR 8 (Delhi)
accommodation by theemployer , he will bechargeable to tax eventhough he does notutilize theaccommodation (at hisown will)
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
12/25
Sardar Arjun Singh Allhuwaliavs CIT (1980) 124 ITR 347 (MP)
with retrospective effect
which have not beentaxed in the past, sucharrears will be taxed in
the year in which it isallowed.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
13/25
Raghunathan (T.M.) vs CIT(1998) 231 ITR 826 (Mad)
The reduction in salary ofan employee cannot beeffected withretrospective effect. Such
reduction can operateonly prospectively.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
14/25
CIT vs Thiagaraja Chetty & Co.(1953) 24 ITR 525 (SC)
For computation of
salary, method ofaccounting followed
by employee isirrelevant.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
15/25
CIT vs Savitaben N Amin (Smt.)(1986) 157 ITR 135 (Guj)
a Managing Directorretired and reappointed,
then it shall not betreated as termination of
service for the purpose ofcomputation of gratuityetc.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
16/25
CIT Vs. Kamal Devi [1971] 81ITR 773 (Delhi).
u/s 16 is permissible
even if the amountreceived asentertainment allowance
is not proved to havebeen spent
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
17/25
CIT vs P.M. Mehra (1993) 201ITR 930 (Bom).
of service appearing in sec.10(10) should be interpreted
to mean the employees totalservice including service
under former employer(s),provided he was not paidgratuity by the former
employer(s)
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
18/25
- Lachman Dass Vs. CIT [1980]
124 ITR 706 (Delhi).
,the time of partition. He sufferedloss of personal movable
property in Pakistan due to
partition. He applied to hisemployer for compensating himfor such loss. Certain payments
were given to him ascompensation. It was held thatsuch payments should not be
taxed as profit in lieu of salary
ens on rece e rom
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
19/25
CIT vs. Janaki Loganathan(2002) 257 ITR 620 (Mad.)
ens on rece ve romUnited NationsOrganisationis not taxable.Further, pension received bya widow of the United
Nations ex-officials from UN Joint Staff Pension Fund isalso exempt.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
20/25
Mutual Acceptance Co. vs. FCT(1944) 69 CLR 389
Allowance means fixed
quantum of money givenregularly in addition tosalary to meet particular
requirement.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
21/25
perquisiteBishamber DayalVs. CIT[1976] 103 ITR 813
(MP).
Compensatory allowance
received by judge underArticle 222(2) of theConstitution is not taxable
since it is neither salary norperquisite
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
22/25
CIT vs S.S.M. Lingappan (1981)7Taxmann 71 (Mad.)
Perquisite may becontractual or voluntary
perquisites .
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
23/25
CIT vs C. Kulandaivelu Konar(1975) 100 ITR 629 (Mad.)
benefit from employment
can be taxed asperquisite. A benefitderived by unauthorised
means shall not betaxable.
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
24/25
Dr. Reddy laboratories Ltd.vs. ITO 58 ITD104
Fixed amount paid to
employees by way ofleave travel allowance
shall not be exempt u/s10(5).
Th l l
-
8/9/2019 57_juridical Pronouncement (Case Law) Relating to Salaries
25/25
Arvind Bhogilal vs. CIT(1976) 105 ITR 764 (Bom.)
The legalrepresentative is not
liable for payment oftax on income that has
not accrued to thedeceased till his death.