9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 1980. In all there are 38 references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Tribunal at the instance of the respective assessee referring the following common question of law for the opinion of the High Court : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case is the amount of tax paid by the British High Commission to the Indian Government on March 29, 1992, chargeable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he employer of the assessees during the relevant accounting period and therefore the said payment made by the British High Commission could not be deemed to be a "perquisite" in terms of section 17(2)(iv) of the Act and therefore could not be included in the gross salary of the assessees. It was also submitted that the assessees were paid salaries in sterling in the U. K. and therefore there was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and was paid to the revenue directly but on behalf of the assessees. The payments were to be taken as on behalf of the former employer since integrated if not by the continuing and the same employer. The British Council was a part of the integrated whole from March 10, 1992 which integrated whole made the payment. We may refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 15 sets out the inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and (3) of section 17, within the meaning of "income". All these statutory provisions make it clear that an amount of tax which would have been payable by an employee-assessee, if paid by the employer on behalf of the assessee, is to be included in the perquisites amounting to salary rendering it liable to tax by being included in income. In the view taken hereinabove, we are fortified by two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
