202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes)

14 SOT 204High Court2007#3965 most cited

What is 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes) authority for?

A 'perquisite' is a personal advantage derived from employment, not a mere reimbursement of necessary expenses.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Owen v. Pook · perquisite · personal advantage · reimbursement · employment benefit · incidental to employment

Also reported as

74 ITR 147

Issues it is cited on

section 44bbsection 44bfees for included servicessection 9(1)(vii)business connectioncomputer softwarefees for technical servicessection 195section 9(1)permanent establishmentsection 194ctax treaty

Judgments citing 202 ITR 1014 (Del) Owen v. Pook (Inspector of Taxes)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Xansa India Ltd., Noida

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2283/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ankur Garg, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 40Section 40a

…No. 628/Del/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Xansa India Limited V ITO ITA NO 2577 & 4698/Del/2011/12 A Y 2004-05 and 2008-09 Page 43 of 91 • CIT vs. Industrial Engineering Products (P) Ltd.: 202 ITR 1014 (Del- HC) • ACITvs. Modicon Network (P) Ltd.: (2007) 14 SOT 204 (Del) • Bangalore International Airport Ltd. vs. ITO: 116 ITD 446 (Bang) • Rolls Royce India Ltd. vs. ITO: 25 ITD 136(Del) • Clifford chance vs. DCIT: 82 ITD 106(Mum) • Coca Cola India Inc. vs. ACIT: 7 SOT 224(Del) 11.69 It cannot be anybody's case that the pure reimbursement of expenditure would constitute an income chargeable to tax in India in…

ITO 16(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sucheta Bakul Patkar, Mumbai

ITA 2602/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2602/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-16 (3)(4) Smt. Sucheta B. Patkar Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Jayakar Building, Avantikabai Gokhale Vs. Mumbai-400 007. Street, Opera House Mumbai-400 004. Pan:Aoppp 7947 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Kailash Gaikwad-Dr Assessee By: Shri Arvind Sonde & Shri Mathrudev Vasudevan सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dtd.28.01.2013,Of The Cit(A)-27,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer(Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee,An Individual,Is Engaged In The Business Of Distribution & Marketing Of Liquor Products,Filed Her Return Of Income On 24.09.2009,Declaring Income Of Rs.9.05 Lakhs.The Ao Completed The Assessment,U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,On 27.12.2011,Determining Her Income At Rs.73.36 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad-DR
Section 133Section 143Section 194HSection 254(1)Section 40

…eimbursement,that it was commissions payment,that the AO had rightly invoked the provisions of section 194H of the Act.The Authorised Representative(AR) referred to the pages 2, 5, 11 – 13 of the paper book. He relied upon the cases of Modicon Network(P) Ltd.(14 SOT 204), Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd.(95 TTJ 53), Nathpa Jhakri Joint Venture (37 SOT 160), Lazard India (P) Ltd. (41 SOT 72), Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (177 Taxman 81), M/s. J.B. Boda & Brothers Pvt. Ltd.(ITA/No.4252/Mum/2009 dt.21.05.2010 AY.2006-07),Karma Energy Ltd. (19 ITR (Trib.)552), Lehman Brothers & Advisors (P) Ltd.(157 ITD 1003) and Om Indi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Vertex Customer Management Ltd., New Delhi

In the result Appeal no 3368/del/2013 of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3759/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vertex Customer Management Ltd., Circle-3(2), C/O. Price Waterhouse Coopers, Vs. New Delhi 11A, Vishnu Digamber Marg, Sucheta Bhawan, New Delhi Pan:Aabcv9414D (Appellant) (Respondent) Vertex Customer Management Ltd., Dcit, C/O. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Circle-3(2), Vs. 11A, Vishnu Digamber Marg, Sucheta New Delhi Bhawan, New Delhi Pan:Aabcv9414D Dcit, Circle-3(2), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Ravi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 9(1)(i)

…gly, AO is directed to treat Rs, 24,511,059 as royalty subject to taxation on Page 24 of 24 gross basis under provisions of DTAA. The appellant shall get relief in respect of remaining amount of Rs. 27,940,955.” Further reliance by assessee on the decision of 14 SOT 204 (Del) in case of ACIT V Modicon network private limited cannot be accepted in view of the finding of facts by CIT (A) that there was no element of income in the entire amount of reimbursements cannot be accepted as it cannot be said with certainty that whether the amount of £ 306,076 allocated by the Appellant was on cost to cost basis or not. We…

At & S India Private Limited, Karnataka vs. DCIT-Range-11, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 2305/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

…71 ITR 401 (SC) j) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 356 k) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. (1993) 202 it 1014 (Cal) l) Rolls Royce India Ltd. v. ITO (1998) 25 ITD 127 (Del) m) ACIT v. Modicon Network Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 14 SOT 204 (Del) The Ld. AR also made the reference to the model treaties issued by OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) with regard to the payment for the computer programs. On the basis of above submission, the CIT(A) held that the expenses are out of the purview of TDS being reimbursed and also not chargeable of tax in India. Ther…

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S at & S India Pvt Ltd, Karnataka

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee’s is allowed

ITA 1160/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4(1)Section 4(2)Section 40Section 90(2)

…71 ITR 401 (SC) j) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 356 k) CIT v. Industrial Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. (1993) 202 it 1014 (Cal) l) Rolls Royce India Ltd. v. ITO (1998) 25 ITD 127 (Del) m) ACIT v. Modicon Network Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 14 SOT 204 (Del) The Ld. AR also made the reference to the model treaties issued by OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) with regard to the payment for the computer programs. On the basis of above submission, the CIT(A) held that the expenses are out of the purview of TDS being reimbursed and also not chargeable of tax in India. Ther…

CIT vs. Yoshimi Kamano

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/326/2012HC Delhi17 May 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 17(2)Section 260A

…regular salary or wages, especially one of a kind expected or promised". 22. 'Perquisite' is thus a privilege, gain or profit incidental to an employment in addition to regular salary or wages. 23. As observed by the House of Lords in Owen v. Pook (1969) 74 ITR 147 (HL), 'perquisite' has a known normal meaning, namely, a personal advantage. The word would not apply to a mere reimbursement of a necessary disbursement. In Rendell v. Went, (1964) 2 All ER 464 (HL), the House held that any benefit or advantage, having a money value, which the holder of an office under the company derives from the company's…

CIT vs. Isao Sakai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/325/2012HC Delhi17 May 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 17(2)Section 260A

…regular salary or wages, especially one of a kind expected or promised". 22. 'Perquisite' is thus a privilege, gain or profit incidental to an employment in addition to regular salary or wages. 23. As observed by the House of Lords in Owen v. Pook (1969) 74 ITR 147 (HL), 'perquisite' has a known normal meaning, namely, a personal advantage. The word would not apply to a mere reimbursement of a necessary disbursement. In Rendell v. Went, (1964) 2 All ER 464 (HL), the House held that any benefit or advantage, having a money value, which the holder of an office under the company derives from the company's…

CIT vs. Yuji Horikawa

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/343/2012HC Delhi17 May 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 17(2)Section 260A

…regular salary or wages, especially one of a kind expected or promised". 22. 'Perquisite' is thus a privilege, gain or profit incidental to an employment in addition to regular salary or wages. 23. As observed by the House of Lords in Owen v. Pook (1969) 74 ITR 147 (HL), 'perquisite' has a known normal meaning, namely, a personal advantage. The word would not apply to a mere reimbursement of a necessary disbursement. In Rendell v. Went, (1964) 2 All ER 464 (HL), the House held that any benefit or advantage, having a money value, which the holder of an office under the company derives from the company's…

CIT vs. Yoshimi Kamano

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA - 326 / 2012HC Delhi17 May 2012
Section 17(2)Section 260A

…regular salary or wages, especially one of a kind expected or promised". 22. 'Perquisite' is thus a privilege, gain or profit incidental to an employment in addition to regular salary or wages. 23. As observed by the House of Lords in Owen v. Pook (1969) 74 ITR 147 (HL), 'perquisite' has a known normal meaning, namely, a personal advantage. The word would not apply to a mere reimbursement of a necessary disbursement. In Rendell v. Went, (1964) 2 All ER 464 (HL), the House held that any benefit or advantage, having a money value, which the holder of an office under the company derives from the company's…

CIT vs. Isao Sakai

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA - 325 / 2012HC Delhi17 May 2012
Section 17(2)Section 260A

…regular salary or wages, especially one of a kind expected or promised". 22. 'Perquisite' is thus a privilege, gain or profit incidental to an employment in addition to regular salary or wages. 23. As observed by the House of Lords in Owen v. Pook (1969) 74 ITR 147 (HL), 'perquisite' has a known normal meaning, namely, a personal advantage. The word would not apply to a mere reimbursement of a necessary disbursement. In Rendell v. Went, (1964) 2 All ER 464 (HL), the House held that any benefit or advantage, having a money value, which the holder of an office under the company derives from the company's…