ARBINDA KUMAR SINGH,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

• Mafatbhai Bhikhabhai Parmar, Bharatpur vs The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara
  Ahmedabad27 May 2024Dismissed

  Also relies on Yoshio Kubo v. CIT

  The Tribunal held that the AO's orders were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because exemptions were allowed without proper inquiry, and in some cases, more exemption was allowed than the amount recei...

• Biswas Manik, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-4(2)(4), Vadodara
  Ahmedabad8 Aug 2025Allowed

  Also relies on Yoshio Kubo v. CIT

  The Tribunal held that for a payment to be taxed as a perquisite, the employee must have a vested right in the amount. Since the assessee had no vested right in the ₹20,00,000/- in AY 2018-19 and it would be taxed in fut...

• Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi vs Addll. CIT, New Delhi
  Delhi15 Jun 2016Allowed

  Also relies on Yoshio Kubo v. CIT

  The Tribunal held that lump sum contributions made under a defined benefit scheme to a pension fund do not attract FBT provisions under Section 115WB(1)(c). This is because no individual employee has a specific benefit e...

• Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan, Bharatpur vs The ITO, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara
  Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026Allowed

  Also relies on Yoshio Kubo v. CIT

  The Tribunal, relying on a previous Coordinate Bench order, held that an employer's contribution to an LIC annuity policy is not taxable as a perquisite under Section 17(2)(v) if the employee does not acquire a vested ri...

• Dhanesh Jayantilal Chokshi, Vadodara vs DCIT CPC, Bengalaru
  Surat9 Feb 2023Partly Allowed

  Also relies on Yoshio Kubo v. CIT

  The Tribunal held that the employer's contribution to the superannuation fund exceeding Rs. 1.50 lakhs is a perquisite under Section 17(2)(vii) and upheld the adjustment. However, it found merit in the assessee's submiss...