“perquisite value”

Income HeadsSection 17(2)Section 17(2)64 judgments

The decision most relied on for perquisite value is 78 (Del) Usha Martin Industries Ltd. V. ACIT (2004) 086 TTJ 0574 (KOL) Nestle India Ltd. v. ACIT (59 ITD 353), cited in 155 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on perquisite value

78 (Del) Usha Martin Industries Ltd. V. ACIT (2004) 086 TTJ 0574 (KOL) Nestle India Ltd. v. ACIT

59 ITD 353 · 1996 · ITAT

155

citing judgments

An assessee's bona fide estimate of employee salary, when valuing perquisites like residential accommodation, can be accepted if the department only brings contrary information to their notice during assessment proceedings.

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.

India Ltd. v. ACIT (1997) 61 ITD 444 (Del) Indian Airlines Ltd. v. ACIT

93 Taxmann.com 89 · 2018 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee's bona fide estimate of employee perquisites, by valuing residential accommodation as if employees were of the Central Government, can be accepted.

Judgments citing perquisite value

ACIT, Circle-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Wealth Advisors Pvt. Limited, Mumbai

In the result Departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 4215/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry(Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 37(1)

allowability in hands of the company, and also there is no additional tax payment by such employee due to inclusion as Perquisite since such perquisite value would be added to cost of shares in hands of the employee. The decision of Biocon Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable for reasons stated above

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5296/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate/Shri Ninad Patade, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Pardeshi, Sr. D/R

Section 92B

amount of Rs.37,98,345/- to the credit of the Central Government towards income tax paid on behalf of employees in respect of perquisite values of shares allotted to them. The aforesaid amount of Rs.37,98,345/- being an expenditure in the hands of the assessee was debited

DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Afcon Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and cross- objections raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2390/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate/Shri Ninad Patade, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Pardeshi, Sr. D/R

Section 92B

ACIT, Circle- 74(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi

ITA 6560/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit Vs. Indian Institute Of Technology, Circle-74(1), Delhi New Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 Pan : Aaati0393L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Karanjot Singh Khurana, Shri Devashish Jain & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR

Section 17(2)(ii)Section 201Section 201(1)

passed an order under Section 201 of the Act on 26.03.2014, holding that the Respondent was required to deduct tax at source on the perquisite value of accommodation provided to the employees at the rate of 15 percent of salary. As per Ld. AO, the perquisite on accommodation provided ... case of Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati v. ITO (TDS), bearing ITA No. 101 (Gau) of 2006 held that there was no perquisite value of rent-free accommodation provided to employees and deleted the demand. 2 ACIT vs. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi 2.5 Aggrieved by the order

ACIT Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. Delmos Aviation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7894/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of this appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41Section 68

remuneration because the Director's have been given rent free accommodation and the landlord had increased the rent during the year and the perquisite value of the rent free accommodation is duly shown in the ITRS filed by the Directors. It is further contended that the AO has made ... Directors’ remuneration as the Directors have been given rent free accommodation and the landlord has increased the rent during the year and the perquisite value of the land free accommodation has been duly shown in ITR filed by the Directors. The said fact has not been brought to the notice

Tushar James, Bangalore vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1479/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

income of Rs.8,55,940/- and Rs.12,22,230/- for A.Y. 2019-20 & 2020-21 respectively. Return of income filed by the assessee includes perquisite value of Rs.23,822/- and Rs.4,823/- for A.Y. 2019-20 and 2020 – 21 respectively in respect of Sri Lanka taxes borne by the employer

Tushar James, Bangalore vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1478/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

ACIT Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Elentee India Pvt Ltd (Formely Known As Ripe Components Technologies Pvt. Ltd), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6728/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. Elentee India Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 8(1) (Formerly Known As Ripe New Delhi – 110 002 Components Technologies Pvt. Ltd.), B-8/14, Ff, Vasant Vihar, Pan No. Aadcr 2107 F New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. K. Chaturvedi, C.A. Revenue By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2023

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

from the AO on the submissions of the appellant and it is submitted by the AO that no supporting evidence and proof of any perquisite value and whether any benefit was extended to the Directors have been furnished. The appellant has furnished only rent agreements without any supporting bills

Mr. Ranjith Thazhe Kunhambath, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Non Corporate Range 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

During the course of assessment, it was noticed that the previous employer M/s. HDFC Bank Limited had deducted tax Rs. 6,60,725/- on perquisite value Rs. 21,38,250/- on account of subscription to employee stock options (ESOP). However, the former employer has not issued any TDS certificate ... Government Account as per challan no. 05194. During the course of hearing the assessee admitted the omission to offer the perquisite value of ESOP to tax. The accordingly concluded the u/s 143(3) assessing the total income at Rs. 28,50,939/- and demanded tax Rs. 8,97,240/- including

Mitsubishi Electric Automotive, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7512/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 3(1)(iii)Section 43(5)

Rs.6,90,154 on account of difference in rent cost incurred by the assessee for providing accommodation to its employees and the respective perquisite value of such residential accommodation determined in the hands of the employees. 25. Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed ... which the Assessing Officer disallowed the differential amount between the rent actually paid by the assessee on behalf of the employees and the perquisite value of rent taxed at the hands of the employees is that it is not in connection with assessee’s business. There is no dispute that

Rohan Hattangadi, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1896/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rohan Hattangadi Cit(A), 32,33/A, Peace Haven Society, Faceless Appeal Centre, Vs. Bandra, Mumbai-400 050 Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 139(5)Section 244ASection 250Section 90

return but not with the original return. 2.5 The learned NFAC ought to have appreciated the fact that in the revised return of income perquisite value of Rs. 37,774 relating to employment exercised in Sri Lanka was offered to tax and also claimed foreign tax relief ... observed that the assessee has filed the revised return 3 Rohan Hattangadi vs. CIT(A) of income for the purpose of including perquisite value of Rs.37,774/-, pertaining to Sri Lanka taxes borne by the employer of the assessee and also claimed foreign tax relief. 4. During the impugned year

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

loan is recovered in 12/24 months (depending on eligibility), salary advance in the same month of disbursal and salary loan in 12 months. The perquisite value for soft loans and salary loans was taxed in the hands of the employees. Sale of scrap, Incentive from Airlines and Inter company cessation

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 413/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 92C

perquisite in the hands of the employees and included in their taxable salary and deduction of TDS on the taxable salary including the ESOP perquisite value as granted to the employees • ESPP scheme document, ESIP scheme document and sample RSU agreement are enclosed as Annexure 1, Annexure 3 and Annexure

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

IT(TP)A No.213/Bang/2021 M/s. Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Naveen Virendrakumar Gupta, Thane vs. ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2476/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Section 15Section 6Section 9

market value and the options exercise price of RS.3,14,25,000 (6,13,52,500 - 2,99,27,000) was taxed as Perquisite value of the ESOPs in the hands of the assessee as " Salary Income" by the AO, even though the same was not offered as "Salary Income

DCIT, Circle3-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 612/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92A

consideration but however assessee had issued ESOP to various employees. He further submitted that the assessee has duly deducted tax at source on the perquisite value on exercise of such ESOPs in the hands of the employee on the amount of discount being the difference between market price

DCIT, Circle-1, New Delhi vs. Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 6558/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92A

Mercury Fabric Creations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4090/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Pundir, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 92B

respect of premises E–434, Greater Kailash–II, New Delhi, where the family of the Directors are residing. Though the Directors have disclosed the perquisite value of rent-freeaccommodation in their hands, the same is valued at Rs.63, 000/- only which is less than he rent paid by assessee. Therefore

Mr. Kosuke Kataoka, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1011/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahna, Advocate

Section 144Section 147Section 148

shown perquisite under rent-free accommodation by considering only the Indian salary whereas, according to the Assessing Officer, he was required to compute perquisite value of rent-free accommodation by including foreign salary also. 4. Notice was issued on 19th March, 2014. In view of non-appearance by the assessee

Mr. Kimiyoshi Muto, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1010/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mahna, Advocate

Section 144Section 147Section 148