“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

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

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

ITA 1009/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

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

Yoshio Kubo vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA - 441 / 2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

that regard are not taxable in the hands of the employee-assessee. Point No. 3: Whether taxes are to be excluded while computing the perquisite value of rent free accommodation provided to an employee, in view of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 43. It was submitted

Scott R.Bayman vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Del

ITA - 285 / 2003HC Delhi17 Aug 2012

Section 131Section 143(1)(a)Section 17Section 2

that it had nothing to do with the performance of his duties for his office. The order of assessment rejected the contention that perquisite value if any could be calculated only on the basis of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, it was held that if the expenses ... fact that these expenses were incurred by the employer and these would have otherwise been payable by the assessee, they are a perquisite value in terms of Sec. 17 (2) (iv). Another important point to be noted is that the perquisite value in terms of Rule 3 is determinable only

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr.Sakakibara Yutaka

ITA - 111 / 2006HC Delhi03 Aug 2012

Section 10Section 10(14)Section 17(2)Section 5(1)(c)Section 6(6)Section 90(2)

Assessing Officer prposed to assess the rent paid by M/s. Maruti Udhyog Ltd. at the hands of the assessee as a perquisite. Since no perquisite value was and shown by him in his return, the assessee was asked to offer his explanation. When the assessee responded stating that