LIC OF INDIA,ROURKELA vs. ITO(TDS), ROURKELA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a fixed medical allowance paid to employees is taxable as salary income, as it is not linked to actual expenditure incurred. Since no bills were submitted to substantiate medical expenses, the exemption under Section 17(2) for reimbursement of actual expenditure was not applicable.
What were the facts?
The assessee, LIC of India, provided a fixed 'cash medical benefit' to its employees. The TDS officer found that this benefit was treated as exempt under Section 10 of the Act, but the officer held it to be taxable salary income. Consequently, the TDS officer raised demands for short deduction of TDS and interest.
What were the issues?
Whether a fixed medical allowance paid to employees is taxable as salary income, and if TDS should be deducted on such allowance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10,Section 15,Section 17(2),Section 201(1),Section 201(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM
Heard together (6 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
2 ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sunakar Mahanty, Adv. िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 22/01/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 17/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Sambalpur, all dated 15.03.2019 for the assessment years 2011-2012 & 2012-2013.
In all the above appeals, the assessee has raised common ground with regard to confirming the addition by the CIT(A) made u/s.201(1) of the Act by the AO for short-deduction of TDS and interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-bank is a cooperative society which has been created by the Special Act of the Legislature. A TDS verification was conducted on 19th October, 2012 in the impugned cases and the ITO(TDS) found from the pay bills register, form No.16 and other relevant documents relating to salary payments of the employees of the assessee that ‘cash medical benefit’ was allowed exemption u/s.10 of the Act by the deductor. The ITO(TDS) noted that under the provisions of Income Tax Act, the cash medical benefit which is paid as an allowance is taxable u/s.15 of the Act irrespective of the fact that it is paid in addition to, or in lieu of salary. Accordingly, the ITO(TDS) calculated the TDS liability for short deduction of tax u/s.201(1) and interest payable u/s.201(1A) of the Act for the respective assessment years under consideration in the respective appeals as under :-
Sl ITA No. AY. Short deduction Interest No of tax payable u/s.201(1) of u/s.201(1A) the Act of the Act 1. 2012-2013 Rs.43,777/- Rs.3,064/- 2. ITA No.199/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.83,162/- Rs.15,801/- 3. ITA No.218/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,72,582/- Rs.34,597/- 4. ITA No.219/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.33,578/- Rs.2,686/- 5. ITA No.250/CTK/19 2011-2012 Rs.1,39,001/- Rs.26,410/- 6. ITA No.251/CTK/19 2012-2013 Rs.40,824/- Rs.2,858/-
Feeling aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A), however, the CIT(A) dismissed all the appeals of the assessee.
Now, aggrieved further from the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the order of AO for non-deduction of TDS as per Section 194A of the Act. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that both the authorities below have failed to appreciate that CBDT vide letter Ref.L F.No.200/75/2001-ITAT, dated 20.05.2002 clarified the matter relating to the income tax on lump sum cash medical benefit to officer and employees of LIC of India and has allowed exemption upto Rs.15,000/- as per the proviso (v) of Section 17(2) of the Act in respect of any expenditure incurred by the officer/employee on his medical treatment Therefore, ld. AR vehemently submitted that the lump sum cash medical benefit to officers and employees upto Rs.15000/- is not chargeable to tax in view of the proviso (v) of Section 17(2) of the Act and also the interest cannot be leviable. Therefore, ld AR submitted that the appeals of the assessee deserves to be allowed.
On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee is to be treated as assessee-in- default for non-deduction of TDS as per Section 201(1) of the Act.
Therefore, ld. DR submitted that the order of the CIT(A) be upheld.
After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire material available on record, we noticed from the orders of authorities below that the ITO(TDS) noted that under the Income Tax Act, the cash medical benefit which is paid as an allowance is taxable u/s.15 of the Act irrespective of the fact that it is paid in addition to or in lieu of salary. The AO was of the view that what is contemplated by proviso (iv) to Sec.17(2) of the Act was any sum paid by the employer in respect of any expenditure "actually incurred" by the employee on his medical treatment or treatment of any member of his family. Since the Assessee was paying medical reimbursement as a component of the monthly payment to the employee and later claiming that it was not perquisite to the extent of Rs.15,000, the same had to be considered as payment should not precede the actually incurring of the expenses and it should be only by way of reimbursement. The grievance of the assessee is that there should not be any deduction of TDS on reimbursement of medical allowance and charging of interest thereon.
On perusal of the impugned order, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee has paid fixed medical allowance and as per the CBDT letter issued to LIC, the exemption of Rs.15000/- is allowed to reimbursement of actual expenditure. We find that medical allowance is a fixed allowance paid to the employees of a company on a monthly basis irrespective of whether they submit the bills to substantiate the expenditure or not. However, medical reimbursement is a payment made to employees against specific medical bills submitted by them, subject to entitlement. If employees want to claim tax benefit, they should submit bills for the corresponding amount under medical reimbursement. As per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, medical allowance is not categorised as an allowance which bears entire exemption. Therefore, the medical allowance is a fixed pay provided by an employer, and is fully taxable. Employees can claim a tax benefit up to Rs.15,000/- under medical reimbursement on production of bills and supporting document as per Section 17 (2) of the IT Act, 1961.
In view of the above factual aspect of the case, we find that the employer has provided fixed medical allowance to his employees. It is clear from the order of the authorities below that the employees have not submitted any bills/vouchers regarding their medical expenses incurred by them. The allowance is exempt to the extent of expenditure incurred by the employees. In the impugned case, there is no any proof of medical expenditure incurred by the employees which is clear from the orders of authorities below. The ld. AR of the assessee also could not substantiate that the employees have spent the allowances received by them for the intended purpose. Therefore, the fixed medical allowance given by the employer is taxable as salary income. The employer has not been deducted TDS on the fixed medical allowance. The CBDT letter relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee has no application on the issue under consideration as the CIT(A) has already dealt the same in the appellate order. The authorities below have decided the issue in detail and accordingly, we uphold the same. Thus, the sole ground raised
in all the appeals under consideration is dismissed.
10. In the result, all appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/02/ 2020. Sd/- Sd/- (C.M.GARG) (L.P.SAHU) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 17/02/2020 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.
प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 2.
More judgments on Section 10
- Integrated People Development Project… vs CIT Exemptions, ChennaiITA 2970/CHNY/2026[-]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026
- Shivashankrappa Sahukar, Kalaburagi vs ITO, Ward-1, KalaburgaiITA 155/BANG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Jagrutiben Manishbhai Trivedi, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 6(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2644/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Jagrutiben Manishbhai Trivedi, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 6(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2643/AHD/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Prabhakar Golkonda, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 9(1), HyderabadITA 994/HYD/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026