2003 (4) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Computing the value of perquisites rate of interest - Petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the amendment made to rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, under the Notification No. S. O. 940(E), dated September 25, 2001, with effect from April 1, 2001. By a later Circular No. 15, dated December 12, 2001, option was given to the employees governed by that amended rule to compute the value of perquisites under the old rule for the period from April 1, 2001, to September 30, 2001. - The amended rule in their view is violative of article 14. - Validity of the amendment to rule 3 had been considered and the amendment upheld in the cases of BHEL Employees Association v. Union of India and Tata Workers Union v. Union of India So, this petition is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of the amendment made to rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 under Notification No. S. O. 940(E), dated September 25, 2001.

Analysis:
The petitioners, comprising of employees in public sector undertakings, challenged the amendment to rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which dealt with the valuation of perquisites. They argued that the amendment deprived them of recognition of their distinct status compared to government and private sector employees and imposed additional tax liability, alleging a violation of article 14. The amended rule altered the mode of valuation of perquisites, but perquisites have always been taxable, with the Income-tax Act not specifying the valuation method. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, as the rule-making authority, has the power to determine the value of perquisites in a proper and reasonable manner under section 295(2)(c).

The classification of salaried employees under the amended rule into government and other employees was deemed valid, with public sector employees not being treated as a separate class. The Supreme Court's precedent established the state's discretion in taxation matters, and the deletion of the special provision for public sector employees did not violate article 14. The notional valuation of perquisites aimed at uniformity and avoiding litigation, with specific percentages for different cities based on population size considered rational and not arbitrary.

The fixation of interest rates for computing the value of perquisites by way of interest-free or concessional loans was found not to be arbitrary, as employees had the option to seek loans elsewhere. The rule aimed to discourage employers from allocating substantial funds for employee loans and to align with prevailing market rates. The exemption from taxation for rent-free accommodation in remote areas was deemed sufficiently clear. Previous High Court judgments upholding the validity of the amendment to rule 3 were cited, leading to the dismissal of the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment.