CIT v. L.W. Russel

53 ITR 91Supreme Court of India1964#7477 most cited

What is CIT v. L.W. Russel authority for?

Payments made by an employer towards pension or annuity schemes are not taxable as perquisites in the hands of the employee unless the employee has acquired a vested right in the sum paid. Similarly, employer contributions to approved superannuation funds are not perquisites if the employee has no vested right.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. L.W. Russel · 53 ITR 91 · SC · section 17(2)(v) · perquisites · pension · annuity · superannuation fund · vested right · employer contribution · salary income

Sections most often in play

Section 15Section 17(2)(v)Section 10(10CC)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 17
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 17(2)section 17salarysection 10section 15companyindianfactotal incomedocument

Judgments citing CIT v. L.W. Russel

Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan, Bharatpur vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 713/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Senthil Kumarthe Ito Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan Vs. Ward-4(1)(7) C/O. J. N. Goyal & Company Vadodara 390 007 C-162 Ranjeet Nagar Bharatpur Rajasthan – 321 001

For Appellant: Shri Rajeevkumar Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 15Section 17(2)(v)

…n a direct present benefit to the employee and the employee has no vested right over the same, the payment made by the employer does not amount to a perquisite under section 17(2)(v) of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. L.W. Russel [1964] 53 ITR 91 (SC) clarified that amounts paid by the employer towards pension/annuity schemes are not taxable in the hands of the employee unless the employee acquires a vested right in the sum so paid. In the present case, the assessee acquired no such vested right in AY 2018-19, and the annuity payments commenced only four years thereafter. Moreover, from the…

Biswas Manik, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 133(6)Section 17Section 17(2)(v)

…n a direct present benefit to the employee and the employee has no vested right over the same, the payment made by the employer does not amount to a perquisite under section 17(2)(v) of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. L.W. Russel [1964] 53 ITR 91 (SC) clarified that amounts paid by the employer towards pension/annuity schemes are not taxable in the hands of the employee unless the employee acquires a vested right in the sum so paid. In the present case, the assessee acquired no such vested right in AY 2018– 19, and the annuity payments commenced only four years thereafter. Moreover, from th…

Dhanesh Jayantilal Chokshi, Vadodara vs. DCIT CPC, Bengalaru

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhdhanesh Jayantilal Chokshi, Ito- Ward 2(5), Bharuch, B-17, Jash Villa, Satsang Gujarat / Vs. Bungalows, Old Padra Road, Cpc Bangalore . Vadodara, Gjuarat-390020. Bcmehta_05@Yahoo.Com Ph;942744114204 Pan No. Acapc 0450 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10(14)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 17(2)Section 254(1)

…sessee are recorded in para 6 & 7 of the order of ld CIT(A). On the issue of adjustment of Rs. 85,319/- on account of employer’s contribution towards approved superannuation fund the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT Vs L.W. Russel (53 ITR 91-SC) and submitted that such employer contribution towards approved superannuation fund could not be treated as “perquisites” so as to tax it under the head “income from salaries”, thus, the assessing officer committed mistake which is apparent from record. 4. The ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee noted that in the salary slip…

Chittharanjan A Dasannacharya vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-V

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/153/2014HC Karnataka23 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 260Section 260ASection 54F

…ken by the tribunal in the aforesaid decisions and therefore, it is not open for the revenue to challenge its correctness in case of other assesses. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CIT VS. L.W.RUSSEL', (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC) AT PAGE 5, 'DHUN DADABHOY KAPADIA VS. CIT', (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC), 'MANGALORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. VS. CIT', (1978) 113 ITR 655 (SC), 'BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD. VS. CIT', (2004) 135 TAXMAN 586 (SC). 10 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue while inviting the attention of this court to clause 2(f) of the stock pl…

William Scott Pinckney, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 58/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 422/Del/2008 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 58/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 William Scott Pinckney, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 9Th Floor, Tower A & B, Express Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi Trade Towers-1, Plot No. 15-16, Sector-16A, Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aampp9190L Assessee By : Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Naina K. Soin, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 .08.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Naina K. Soin, Sr. DR
Section 17(2)(v)Section 234BSection 250

…and the contribution to superannuation guarantee is not taxable. It was argued that benefit accrues only on happening of specified contingent event or attaining the specified age and hence not taxable. He also relied on the judgments in the case of L.W Russel 53 ITR 91, NKS Lal 208 ITR 14, T. Adashi 100 TTJ 332,pramod Bhasin 8SOT 72 (DEL) 4 William Scott Pinckney 4. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue. 5. Heard the arguments of the parties and perused the record before us. And the following pertinent points are brought out. • The assessed is a full time employee of Amway India, he is on a contract with…

William Scott Pinckney vs. The DCIT Circle 1 (1)

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 422/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 422/Del/2008 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 58/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 William Scott Pinckney, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 9Th Floor, Tower A & B, Express Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi Trade Towers-1, Plot No. 15-16, Sector-16A, Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aampp9190L Assessee By : Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Naina K. Soin, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 .08.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Naina K. Soin, Sr. DR
Section 17(2)(v)Section 234BSection 250

…and the contribution to superannuation guarantee is not taxable. It was argued that benefit accrues only on happening of specified contingent event or attaining the specified age and hence not taxable. He also relied on the judgments in the case of L.W Russel 53 ITR 91, NKS Lal 208 ITR 14, T. Adashi 100 TTJ 332,pramod Bhasin 8SOT 72 (DEL) 4 William Scott Pinckney 4. Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Revenue. 5. Heard the arguments of the parties and perused the record before us. And the following pertinent points are brought out. • The assessed is a full time employee of Amway India, he is on a contract with…

Sharad Kumar Saraf, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. ShlokaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)

…It is stated that by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 a new section 115WM was inserted to abolish the fringe benefit tax w.e.f. AY 2010-11 Also reliance is placed by them on the decision in CIT v. M.N. Nadkarni (1996) 161 ITR 544 (Bom), CIT v. L.W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC), CIT v. Lala Shri Dhar (1972) 84 ITR 192 (Delhi). The Ld. counsel filed a copy of the above decisions. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Also relying on the order dated 30.06.2017 of the ITAT ‘J’ Bench Mumbai in assessee’s own case for the AY 2006-07 (ITA No. 7652/Mum/2014), it is submitted by him that fact…

Eih Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2642/DEL/2015[2004-05 (F.Y. 2003-04)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 133ASection 192Section 201(1)

…e should be a vested right in an employee to claim any salary from an employer or former employer whether due or not if paid; or paid or allowed, though not due. 4.4.3. Considering the analogue provisions as considered in the case of CIT vs CW Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC) it was held that Section 7(1) of 1922 Act which preceded section 15 & 17 of the present Act it was necessary to have a vested right to receive an amount from his employer before it could be brought to tax under the head salaries. It was noted that the section pre-supposed the existence of relationship of employer and employee and on the facts…

Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2405/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2405/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 The Chief Manager, Vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income Punjab National Bank, Ho Finance Tax, Range-14, C.R. Building, Division, 5-Sansad Marg, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp0165G Assessee By : Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 115WSection 17(2)

…not vest in the employee. In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi Court as well as the advice given by Authority for Advanced Rulings which, in turn, followed the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. L.W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC), the amount paid during the year cannot be considered as a contribution to superannuation fund as contemplated under the provisions of section 115WB(1)(c). 12.1. In view of the above, since the amount is not paid to the benefit of any individual employee, the lump sum contribution made under the defined benefit scheme, in our opinion, does not…

Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2981/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4493/Del./2009 : A.Y. : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath Adv. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Chand, C.I.T, DR
Section 115Section 115WSection 139(1)

…not vest in the employee. In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi Court as well as the advise given by Authority for Advanced Rulings which, in turn, followed the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. L.W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC), the amount paid during the year cannot be considered as a contribution to superannuation fund as contemplated under the provisions of section 115WB(1)(c). 12.1. In view of the above, since the amount is not paid to the benefit of any individual employee, the lump sum contribution made under the defined benefit scheme, in our opinion, does not…

Punjab National Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4254/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4493/Del./2009 : A.Y. : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath Adv. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Chand, C.I.T, DR
Section 115Section 115WSection 139(1)

…not vest in the employee. In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi Court as well as the advise given by Authority for Advanced Rulings which, in turn, followed the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. L.W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC), the amount paid during the year cannot be considered as a contribution to superannuation fund as contemplated under the provisions of section 115WB(1)(c). 12.1. In view of the above, since the amount is not paid to the benefit of any individual employee, the lump sum contribution made under the defined benefit scheme, in our opinion, does not…

Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi vs. Addll. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3869/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4493/Del./2009 : A.Y. : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath Adv. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Chand, C.I.T, DR
Section 115Section 115WSection 139(1)

…not vest in the employee. In view of the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi Court as well as the advise given by Authority for Advanced Rulings which, in turn, followed the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. L.W. Russel (1964) 53 ITR 91 (SC), the amount paid during the year cannot be considered as a contribution to superannuation fund as contemplated under the provisions of section 115WB(1)(c). 12.1. In view of the above, since the amount is not paid to the benefit of any individual employee, the lump sum contribution made under the defined benefit scheme, in our opinion, does not…

Shri Tapas Kumar Bandopadhyay, Kolkata vs. DCIT, (It), 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. H. Choudhury, JDIT
Section 143(3)Section 5Section 6

…meaning of the phrase 'due from an employer ... whether paid or not'. This phrase was present in section 7(1) of the 1922 Act also. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had occasion to determine the meaning of this phrase in the case of CIT vs L. W. Russel (1964), 53 ITR 91(SC). Hon'ble Apex Court held that: "The expression "due" followed by the qualifying clause "whether paid or not" shows that there shall be an obligation on the part of the employer to pay that amount and a right on the employee to claim the same." Thus, as explicitly and unequivocally determined by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the term "due" as qualifi…

CIT vs. Cj International Hotels Ltd

The appeals are allowed

ITA/445/2011HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…for the purposes of Section 15. The employer, by virtue of employment, allows the employee to receive tips from the customers and in case the employer himself collects, that is also disbursed by the employer to the employees. As per CIT v. L.W. Russel, 53 ITR 91, in order that any payment can be construed as a nature of “salary”, the same must have reference to the employment, where under the employee acquires vested right, enforceable in law to receive the amount. In this case, it was also held that the expression “paid” includes every receipt by the employee from the employer whether it was due t…

CIT vs. Cj International Hotels Ltd

The appeals are allowed

ITA - 445 / 2011HC Delhi11 May 2011
Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

…for the purposes of Section 15. The employer, by virtue of employment, allows the employee to receive tips from the customers and in case the employer himself collects, that is also disbursed by the employer to the employees. As per CIT v. L.W. Russel, 53 ITR 91, in order that any payment can be construed as a nature of “salary”, the same must have reference to the employment, where under the employee acquires vested right, enforceable in law to receive the amount. In this case, it was also held that the expression “paid” includes every receipt by the employee from the employer whether it was due t…