9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, reads: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the premium paid on personal accident insurance policies of its employees should not be treated as a perquisite for the purpose of section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The facts behind the legal for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... policy were payable to the assessee-company and, therefore, the premia paid under the policy should not be taken as perquisites for purposes of s. 40A(5), Explanation 2. Aggrieved by the order of the AAC the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal took the same line of reasoning and affirmed the view taken by the AAC following the judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m under an obligation which, but for such payment, would have been payable by the employee. It means, if payment had not been made by the employer, it has to be paid by the employee. The substance of clause (v) is also the same. It must also be a payment by the assessee of any sum to effect an assurance on the life of the employee or to effect a contract for an annuity. Brief reference to clauses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1922, which is similar to s. 17(2) of the 1961 Act, observed at page 97: "It implies that a right is conferred on the employee in respect of those perquisites. One cannot be said to allow a perquisite to an employee if the employee has no right to the same. It cannot apply to contingent payments to which the employee has no right till the contingency occurs, In short, the employee must have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
