← All Phrases

“Section 17(2)(v)”

Section References (mined)Section 17Section 17(2)(v)19 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 17(2)(v) is CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385), cited in 270 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 17(2)(v)

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India
257 ITR 202 · 2002 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
297 ITR 167 · 2008 · Supreme Court
115
citing judgments

Allotment of shares to employees under an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) before April 1, 2000, is not a taxable perquisite if the benefit's value is unascertainable at the time of option exercise due to conditions like a lock-in period.

CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association
247 ITR 201 · 2001 · Supreme Court
112
citing judgments

While there is no statutory time limit for filing Form 10 to claim exemption for income accumulation under Section 11(2), it must be furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption.

Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO
148 Taxmann.com 17 · High Court
100
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society on its funds deposited with banks is considered business income, making it eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT
325 ITR 422 · 2010 · Supreme Court
72
citing judgments

Forfeited advance money received for the transfer of a capital asset is not taxable as revenue receipt. Such forfeiture pertains to a capital receipt directly related to the potential sale of a capital asset.

ACIT v. Bharat V.Patel
92 Taxmann.com 336 · 2018 · Reported
60
citing judgments

An assessee cannot be subjected to tax in the absence of a specific provision allowing for such taxation.

Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT
57 ITR 185 · 1965 · Supreme Court
53
citing judgments

A transfer of an immovable asset for capital gains purposes requires an effective conveyance through a registered sale deed to pass title. Prior to the amendment introducing Section 2(47)(v), transactions involving mere execution of documents or granting possession without registration were not considered complete transfers for tax.

Judgments citing Section 17(2)(v)

Rajkumar Pavankumar Sharma, Makarpura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1821/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 17(2)(v)

convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee. He held that the amount paid by the employer to LIC constituted a perquisite under section 17(2)(v) of the Act and was taxable in the year of payment by the employer. The Assessing Officer further held that the exemption under ... jurisdiction by the assessee. 7. On the issue of taxability of Rs. 15,00,000/- paid to LIC, the CIT(Appeals) held that section 17(2)(v) of the Act clearly includes within the definition of perquisite any sum payable by the employer to effect a contract for annuity

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)

Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan vs. ITO AY : 2018-19 3 perquisite in the hands of the assessee in AY 2018-19 under section 17(2)(v) of the Act. Section 17(2)(v) of the Act includes within the definition of perquisite any sum paid by the employer to effect ... 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

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)

this, the AO held that the amount Biswas Manik vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– paid to LIC formed part of salary under Section 17(2)(v) of the Act, being a perquisite in the nature of a contract for an annuity. However, exemption under Section 10(10CC) was allowed ... assessee-payable in future-can be taxed as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee in AY 2018-19 under section 17(2)(v) of the Act. Section 17(2)(v) of the Act includes within the definition of perquisite any sum paid by the employer to effect

Arbinda Kumar Singh, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 471/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

issued by the employer is enclosed is A_1. 4. You have misinterpreted the true implication and real import of the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of IT Act, 1961 corresponding to section 7(1) of IT Act 1922 and ignored the landmark verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex ... assessee during the FY 2017-18 has been included in his ITR under the head "Income from Salary chargeable to tax under section 17(2)(v) by the assessee as an honest law abiding tax payer. The Master Policy No. GFIP/714001659 issued by the LIC to effect a contract

Ankit Pranlal Patel, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 470/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

issued by the employer is enclosed is A_1. 4. You have misinterpreted the true implication and real import of the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of IT Act, 1961 corresponding to section 7(1) of IT Act 1922 and ignored the landmark verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex ... assessee during the FY 2017-18 has been included in his ITR under the head "Income from Salary chargeable to tax under section 17(2)(v) by the assessee as an honest law abiding tax payer. The Master Policy No. GFIP/714001659 issued by the LIC to effect a contract

Shrikantsingh Ramdayal Shakya, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 469/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

issued by the employer is enclosed is A_1. 4. You have misinterpreted the true implication and real import of the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of IT Act, 1961 corresponding to section 7(1) of IT Act 1922 and ignored the landmark verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex ... assessee during the FY 2017-18 has been included in his ITR under the head "Income from Salary chargeable to tax under section 17(2)(v) by the assessee as an honest law abiding tax payer. The Master Policy No. GFIP/714001659 issued by the LIC to effect a contract

Wilson Mikhael Topno, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 468/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

issued by the employer is enclosed is A_1. 4. You have misinterpreted the true implication and real import of the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of IT Act, 1961 corresponding to section 7(1) of IT Act 1922 and ignored the landmark verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex ... assessee during the FY 2017-18 has been included in his ITR under the head "Income from Salary chargeable to tax under section 17(2)(v) by the assessee as an honest law abiding tax payer. The Master Policy No. GFIP/714001659 issued by the LIC to effect a contract

Bharatsingh Amarsingh Rajput, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 467/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

issued by the employer is enclosed is A_1. 4. You have misinterpreted the true implication and real import of the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of IT Act, 1961 corresponding to section 7(1) of IT Act 1922 and ignored the landmark verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex ... assessee during the FY 2017-18 has been included in his ITR under the head "Income from Salary chargeable to tax under section 17(2)(v) by the assessee as an honest law abiding tax payer. The Master Policy No. GFIP/714001659 issued by the LIC to effect a contract

Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 466/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

issued by the employer is enclosed is A_1. 4. You have misinterpreted the true implication and real import of the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of IT Act, 1961 corresponding to section 7(1) of IT Act 1922 and ignored the landmark verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex ... assessee during the FY 2017-18 has been included in his ITR under the head "Income from Salary chargeable to tax under section 17(2)(v) by the assessee as an honest law abiding tax payer. The Master Policy No. GFIP/714001659 issued by the LIC to effect a contract

Mahendra Ambalal Rohit, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 465/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

issued by the employer is enclosed is A_1. 4. You have misinterpreted the true implication and real import of the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of IT Act, 1961 corresponding to section 7(1) of IT Act 1922 and ignored the landmark verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex ... assessee during the FY 2017-18 has been included in his ITR under the head "Income from Salary chargeable to tax under section 17(2)(v) by the assessee as an honest law abiding tax payer. The Master Policy No. GFIP/714001659 issued by the LIC to effect a contract

Jitendra Kumar Shimpi, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 464/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

issued by the employer is enclosed is A_1. 4. You have misinterpreted the true implication and real import of the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of IT Act, 1961 corresponding to section 7(1) of IT Act 1922 and ignored the landmark verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex ... assessee during the FY 2017-18 has been included in his ITR under the head "Income from Salary chargeable to tax under section 17(2)(v) by the assessee as an honest law abiding tax payer. The Master Policy No. GFIP/714001659 issued by the LIC to effect a contract

Mafatbhai Bhikhabhai Parmar, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 463/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

issued by the employer is enclosed is A_1. 4. You have misinterpreted the true implication and real import of the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of IT Act, 1961 corresponding to section 7(1) of IT Act 1922 and ignored the landmark verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex ... assessee during the FY 2017-18 has been included in his ITR under the head "Income from Salary chargeable to tax under section 17(2)(v) by the assessee as an honest law abiding tax payer. The Master Policy No. GFIP/714001659 issued by the LIC to effect a contract

Shri G Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 38/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

Shri G Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 37/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

G Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 36/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

Sri Gottumukkala Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 35/VIZ/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

Sri Gottumukkala Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 34/VIZ/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

Sri Gottumukkala Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 33/VIZ/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

Yoshio Kubo vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA - 441 / 2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

phrase. It was argued that therefore, as long as ―perquisite‖ is widely defined and in an inclusive manner, with the phraseology adopted under Section 17 (2) (v), the amounts paid towards tax by the employer are included within the term perquisite. Reliance was placed, on the judgment reported as Boeing ... further argues that since the contributions did not match the description of the excluded category, they were covered by the main provision of Section 17 (2) (v) and taxable as part of the salary. 28. It is argued by Mr. Deepak Chopra for the revenue that there is a significant