Emil Webber v. CIT

200 ITR 483Supreme Court of India1993#4312 most cited

What is Emil Webber v. CIT authority for?

The definition of 'income' under section 2(24) is inclusive, adding artificial categories without losing its natural connotation. Perquisites under section 17(2) are taxable as 'salary' when paid by an employer on behalf of an employee to discharge an obligation the employee would otherwise bear.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Emil Webber v. CIT · section 2(24) · income definition · section 17 · salary · perquisites · employer obligation · taxable income

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 2(14)Section 2(24)Section 2(47)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 17section 2(24)section 10salarysection 15transferpersonindiabusinesscompanyinterest

Judgments citing Emil Webber v. CIT

Yoshio Kubo vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA-441/2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

…(4) inclusively brings within the sweep of ―salary‖ perquisites which is specifically defined under Section 17(2). 6. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision reported as Emil Webber v. Commissioner of Income Tax, V&M, Nagpur AIR 1993 SC 1466 (200 ITR 483) and that of Mysore High Court in Tokyo Shibaura Electric Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore 1964 (52) ITR 283 (Kar). It was emphasized that wherever such income is paid by the employer on behalf of the employee, it is a mandatory payment in discharge of his obligation which would otherwise have been exclusively borne by him…

Yoshio Kubo vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA - 441 / 2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

…(4) inclusively brings within the sweep of ―salary‖ perquisites which is specifically defined under Section 17(2). 6. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision reported as Emil Webber v. Commissioner of Income Tax, V&M, Nagpur AIR 1993 SC 1466 (200 ITR 483) and that of Mysore High Court in Tokyo Shibaura Electric Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore 1964 (52) ITR 283 (Kar). It was emphasized that wherever such income is paid by the employer on behalf of the employee, it is a mandatory payment in discharge of his obligation which would otherwise have been exclusively borne by him…

Yoshio Kubo vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA/441/2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

…(4) inclusively brings within the sweep of ―salary‖ perquisites which is specifically defined under Section 17(2). 6. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision reported as Emil Webber v. Commissioner of Income Tax, V&M, Nagpur AIR 1993 SC 1466 (200 ITR 483) and that of Mysore High Court in Tokyo Shibaura Electric Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore 1964 (52) ITR 283 (Kar). It was emphasized that wherever such income is paid by the employer on behalf of the employee, it is a mandatory payment in discharge of his obligation which would otherwise have been exclusively borne by him…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Rahaman Khan Tobacco Enterprises

ITTA/34/2007HC Telangana21 Mar 2012

Mitsubishi Corporation vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr

Appeals are dismissed

ITA - 487 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011
Section 154Section 195ASection 201Section 201(1)

…it was an apparent case of patent mistake of law and to rectify such a mistake, the AO was empowered by the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. She also referred to the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Emil Webber Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [200 ITR 483] and also of this Court in T.P.S. Scoot and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [232] ITR 4751 in support of the submission that tax perquisite is a Her precise argument based on the part of gross salary. aforesaid submission was that in the aforesaid judgments ![](_page_14_Picture_1.jpeg) including the judgment of the Supreme Court when it w…

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)

…ential pre-condition of Section 15 are not met, since the amount of tips is neither due from any employer nor it would constitute as a salary paid or allowed to be paid by or on behalf of the employer. Learned counsel refers to the case of Emil Webber : 200 ITR 483 @ 487 (SC). Learned senior counsel, Mr.Syali, also submits that the payments should flow from the employer to the employee or else it is income from other source and not as part of salary. To bolster the above submissions, learned counsels of the assessees, Mr.Vohra and Mr.Sayali, rely upon the cases of The Ram Bagh Palace Hotel, Jaipur…

CIT vs. Cj International Hotels Ltd

The appeals are allowed

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

…ential pre-condition of Section 15 are not met, since the amount of tips is neither due from any employer nor it would constitute as a salary paid or allowed to be paid by or on behalf of the employer. Learned counsel refers to the case of Emil Webber : 200 ITR 483 @ 487 (SC). Learned senior counsel, Mr.Syali, also submits that the payments should flow from the employer to the employee or else it is income from other source and not as part of salary. To bolster the above submissions, learned counsels of the assessees, Mr.Vohra and Mr.Sayali, rely upon the cases of The Ram Bagh Palace Hotel, Jaipur…