Section 15 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.15

Section 15 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 15 (Salaries) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 15 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 15 is CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan (247 ITR 260), cited in 53 of the 120 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 15

CIT v. Avtar Singh Wadhwan
247 ITR 260 · 2001 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Salary received by a non-resident for services rendered outside India accrues outside India and is not taxable in India. Only salary earned for work performed in India is regarded as income arising in India and is taxable.

DIT (International Taxation) v. PrahladVijendra Rao
198 Taxmann 551 · 2011 · High Court
42
citing judgments
1. CIT v. Appollo Hospitals Int Ltd.
375 ITR 49 · 2015 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Retainer doctors engaged by a hospital fall under the purview of Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, requiring TDS, and not Section 192 which applies to salaries.

IBM India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) LTU
59 Taxmann.com 107 · 2015 · Reported
19
citing judgments

Tax is deductible at source on provisions made at the year-end, even if the payee is not identifiable at that point, as the obligation to deduct arises when the sum is credited to a suspense account or similar designation.

CIT v. L.W. Russel
53 ITR 91 · 1964 · Supreme Court
15
citing judgments

Payments made by an employer towards pension or annuity schemes are not taxable as perquisites in the hands of the employee unless the employee has acquired a vested right in the sum paid. Similarly, employer contributions to approved superannuation funds are not perquisites if the employee has no vested right.

Ram Prashad v. CIT
86 ITR 122 · 1972 · Supreme Court
11
citing judgments

A director can have a dual capacity, acting both as a director and an employee. Control over a company does not always need to be day-to-day and can be exercised through articles of association or by virtue of designation and seniority.

ACIT v. Motor Industries Co.
249 ITR 141 · 2001 · High Court
9
citing judgments
Ranjit Kumar Bose v. ITO
18 ITD 230 · 1986 · ITAT
8
citing judgments
CIT v. AP Kalyanakrishnan
195 ITR 534 · 1992 · High Court
8
citing judgments
S.P. Shrivastava & Sons. v. CIT
240 ITR 552 · 1990 · High Court
8
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 15

Sundarrajan Venkatesan, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITTPA 53/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 51/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Ramesh Kumar Ae, Ito बनाम/ 601, Vedanshi Apartments International Taxation-2(1) 18, 100 Ft.Road, Velachery, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 042. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aerpr-0904-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2731/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Kalyana Murugan Arumugam Ito बनाम/ No.1/44, Pillaiyar Koil Street, International Taxation-1(2) Vs. Ariyur, Vellore-632 055. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Arrpk-9359-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 53/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sundarrajan Venkatesan Ito Gri House, 2Nd Floor,New No.12, बनाम/ International Taxation-2(2) Old No.112,Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ajrps-6986-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 52/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sriram Prabhu Krishnamoorthy Ito बनाम/ 5, 3Rd Cross Street, Jayanagar, International Taxation-2(1) Vs. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram(Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Guduri(JCIT) – Ld.Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Sriram Prabh Krishnamoorthy, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITTPA 52/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 51/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Ramesh Kumar Ae, Ito बनाम/ 601, Vedanshi Apartments International Taxation-2(1) 18, 100 Ft.Road, Velachery, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 042. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aerpr-0904-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2731/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Kalyana Murugan Arumugam Ito बनाम/ No.1/44, Pillaiyar Koil Street, International Taxation-1(2) Vs. Ariyur, Vellore-632 055. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Arrpk-9359-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 53/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sundarrajan Venkatesan Ito Gri House, 2Nd Floor,New No.12, बनाम/ International Taxation-2(2) Old No.112,Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ajrps-6986-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 52/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sriram Prabhu Krishnamoorthy Ito बनाम/ 5, 3Rd Cross Street, Jayanagar, International Taxation-2(1) Vs. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram(Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Guduri(JCIT) – Ld.Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Ramesh Kumar Ae, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation 2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITTPA 51/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 51/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Ramesh Kumar Ae, Ito बनाम/ 601, Vedanshi Apartments International Taxation-2(1) 18, 100 Ft.Road, Velachery, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 042. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aerpr-0904-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2731/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Kalyana Murugan Arumugam Ito बनाम/ No.1/44, Pillaiyar Koil Street, International Taxation-1(2) Vs. Ariyur, Vellore-632 055. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Arrpk-9359-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 53/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sundarrajan Venkatesan Ito Gri House, 2Nd Floor,New No.12, बनाम/ International Taxation-2(2) Old No.112,Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ajrps-6986-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 52/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sriram Prabhu Krishnamoorthy Ito बनाम/ 5, 3Rd Cross Street, Jayanagar, International Taxation-2(1) Vs. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram(Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Guduri(JCIT) – Ld.Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Kalyana Murugan Arumugam, Vellore vs. ITO International Taxation 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2731/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 51/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Ramesh Kumar Ae, Ito बनाम/ 601, Vedanshi Apartments International Taxation-2(1) 18, 100 Ft.Road, Velachery, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 042. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aerpr-0904-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2731/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Kalyana Murugan Arumugam Ito बनाम/ No.1/44, Pillaiyar Koil Street, International Taxation-1(2) Vs. Ariyur, Vellore-632 055. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Arrpk-9359-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 53/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sundarrajan Venkatesan Ito Gri House, 2Nd Floor,New No.12, बनाम/ International Taxation-2(2) Old No.112,Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ajrps-6986-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./It(Tp)A No. 52/Chny/2018 (िनधा<रणवष< / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sriram Prabhu Krishnamoorthy Ito बनाम/ 5, 3Rd Cross Street, Jayanagar, International Taxation-2(1) Vs. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram(Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Guduri(JCIT) – Ld.Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9Section 9(1)(ii)

Gautam Arora, Chennai vs. DCIT(International Taxation)-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 354/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 354/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gautam Arora Dcit, (International Taxation)- Flat No. 052, Block 40 Vs 1(1), Kolkata Dlf Garden City Near Psbb Millenium School Omr, Thalambur Chennai - 603103 [Pan : Aerpa7725B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 128 (One Hundred Twenty Eight) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of Covid-19 Which Has Been Excluded By 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 250Section 5(2)