9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of tax liability paid by British High Commission on behalf of employees under section 15 read with section 17(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary: The High Court of Delhi addressed 38 references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the tax liability of employees of the British Council merged into the British High Commission. The employees contended that the tax paid by the British High Commission should not be considered a "perquisite" under section 17(2)(iv) as the Commission was not their employer during the relevant period. However, the Tribunal found that the payments made were part of the conditions of service and were considered emoluments. The Court referred to relevant statutory provisions such as section 15, section 17(1)(iv), and section 2 of the Act to determine that tax paid by the employer on behalf of the employee is included in the perquisites amounting to salary, making it taxable income. The Court relied on English decisions and High Court precedents in India to support the inclusion of income-tax paid by the employer as part of the employee's salary. It cited cases like North British Railway Co. v. Scott and Hartland v. Diggines, followed by the Bombay High Court and the Madras High Court, which held that tax paid on behalf of the employee is considered part of the employee's salary. The Court agreed with these decisions and ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the tax paid by the British High Commission on behalf of the employees is indeed chargeable in the hands of the assessee under the specified sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
