“Section 17(2)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 17Section 17(2)(iii)3 judgments

SHARAD KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEDIA CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1381/CHNY/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1381/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Mr. Sharad Kumar, The Dcit, New No.6, Old No.7, Media Circle-1, Nawab Habibullah Avenue, Chennai. 3Rd Street, Chennai-6. [Pan: Aasps 2554 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. T.M.Suganthamala

Section 2(24)(iv)

charging any interest or by charging interest at a concessional rate Mr. Sharad Kumar :: 6 :: amounted to a benefit for the purposes of section 17(2)(iii) of the Act, there was no need for Parliament to introduce, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, the new sub-clause ... employee without charging any interest or by charging interest at a concessional rate amounts to a benefit for the purposes of Section 17(2)(iii) of the Act, there was no need for Parliament to introduce, by the Taxation Laws (Amendment Act, 1984, the new sub- clause (vi) in Section

RAOUL THACKERSEY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1262/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

mind to the decisions relied upon. It is evident from the factual matrix that the addition made of Rs.1.95 crore as perquisite under section 17(2)(iii) of the Act was on the reasoning that the assessee has 26 ITA.No.1262/MUM./2017 received a benefit in lieu of salary, since ... concluded that the difference between the stamp duty value and actual sale consideration is a benefit given to the assessee as per section 17(2)(iii) of the Act. However, there is nothing on record, either in the assessment proceeding or in the order of the first appellate authority

AMEE FOSTER WHEELER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE RANGE-1,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

that the same is to be applied only for the purpose of valuation of perquisites. We find that even the proviso to section 17(2)(iii) of the Act no where contemplated the eligibility of allowability of deduction of ESOP expenditure for an assessee. In any case, if the proviso