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

Bhagwatilal G Shah vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, question No

ITR/16/1992HC Gujarat10 Feb 2005
Section 15Section 17(3)Section 256(1)Section 5(1)(c)Section 80

Southern Agrifurane Industries Ltd vs. Commercial Tax Officer

C.A. No.-008607-008610 - 2002Supreme Court08 Feb 2005
For Respondent: Commercial Tax Officer & Ors
Section 17Section 17A(2)Section 24(3)

Commissioner of Wealth-Tax vs. Hasmukhlal Gandalal

WTR/52/1991HC Gujarat24 Jun 2003
Section 18(1)(c)Section 27(1)

Commissioner of Wealth-Tax vs. Chandrakant Gandalal

WTR/49/1991HC Gujarat23 Jun 2003
Section 18(1)(c)Section 27(1)

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sardar Arjun Singh Ahluwalia (Dead)Through Lrs. Etc

In the result, we answer the first question in the affinnative and in

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1206/1982Supreme Court26 Oct 1999

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 15

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mansukhlal Govind Vyas

ITR/358/1983HC Gujarat01 May 1998
Section 15Section 17(1)Section 17(2)Section 17(2)(iii)Section 256(1)Section 40A

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kiranbhai H Shelat

ITR/54/1993HC Gujarat27 Apr 1998
Section 256(1)

Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. Etc vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Accordingly the appeals preferred by the assessees are dismissed

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1187/1985Supreme Court16 Apr 1996

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 256(1)Section 40

U.P. Sales Tax Service Association vs. Taxation Bar Association

C.A. No.-007872-007872 - 1995Supreme Court01 Sept 1995

Bench: RAMASWAMY K.

For Respondent: TAXATION BAR ASSOCIATION, AGRA & ORS
Section 15Section 9

Bengal Iron Corporation vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Accordingly fails and is dismissed

C.A. No.-004474-004474 - 1992Supreme Court27 Apr 1993

Bench: JEEVAN REDDY B.P. (J)

For Respondent: C. T. O
Section 6

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd

In the result the appeals are allowed, the judgment of the High

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1350/1974Supreme Court15 Jul 1986

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 24Section 6

Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P vs. Gurbux Rai Harbux Rai

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1225/1967Supreme Court24 Aug 1971

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 10

Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam and. Nagaland Etc vs. Shri G. Hyatt

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1174/1967Supreme Court21 Jan 1971

Bench: 3 Judges

Section 17(3)(ii)Section 56

Chandroji Rao vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, M.P. Nagpur

CIVIL APPEAL No. 505/1967Supreme Court28 Apr 1970

Bench: 3 Judges

G. Ekambarappa & Ors vs. Excess Profits Tax Officer, Bellary

CIVIL APPEAL No. 185/1966Supreme Court02 May 1967

Bench: 3 Judges

M/S. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co., Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab & Anr

CIVIL APPEAL No. 534/1964Supreme Court05 Oct 1964

Bench: 5 Judges

Section 7

The Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Hyderabad vs. M/S. S. R. V. G. Press Company, Kurnool

CIVIL APPEAL No. 270/1960Supreme Court10 Mar 1961

Bench: Tho Act Came Into Dafeda-;;Iranjan Force. Singh & Another Nor Do We Find Any Force In The Argument Of Learned V. Counsel For The State That Under S. 27 Of The Act, The Custodian, Custodian-General May At Any Time Revise The Order Evacuee Property Of Any Custodian And, Therefore, The Custodian-Gene' (Pb.) 6- Anoth" 1 · 'Th T L' 'T F T' D Ra Can Revise W1 Ou Any Im1 O Ime Any Or Er Subba Rao J. Made By Any Custodian Under Any Previous Law. Sec- Tion 27 Of The Act Can Be Given Retrospective Opera- Tion Only To The Extent Permitted By S. 58(3) Of The Act. We Have Held Thats. 58(3) Does Not Affect The Pre- Vious Operation Of The Jaw & Therefore Cannot Affect The Finality Of The Orders Made Under The Ordinance. So The Words In The Section "Any Time" Or "Any Custo- Dian" Must Necessarily Be Confined Only To Orders Of Any One Of The Custodians Defined In The Act & To Orders Of Custodians Deemed To Have Been Made Under The Act But Had Not Become Final Before The Act Came Into Force. Marek Zo. No Other Point Was Raised. In The Result, The Order Of The Custodian-General Is Set Aside & That Of The Custodian Dated June 6, 1949, Is Restored. The Res- Pondents Will Pay The Costs To The Appellants. Appeal Allowed. The Commissioner Of Excess Profits Tax, Hyderabad V. M/S. S. R. V. G. Press Company, Kurnool (J. L. Kapur & J. C. Brah, Jj.) Excess Profits Tax-Sales Tax-Provisional Payment In Advance, If Permissible Deduction-Excess Profits Tax Act, R940 (Xv Of R940), R. I2, Sch. I. ,1 • • The Respondents Were Entitled To A Rebate Of Sales Tax On '. Goods Purchased By Them & Used,In Their Manufacturing Process. They Had Adopted The System Which Was Permissible Under Law

R. G. S. Naidu and Co vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Excess Profits Tax, Madras

CIVIL APPEAL No. 181/1960Supreme Court14 Dec 1960

Bench: 3 Judges

The Commissioner 0]' Income Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay vs. M/S. Narsee Nagsee and Co., Bombay

The appeal is dismissed with costs

CIVIL APPEAL No. 319/1958Supreme Court06 May 1960

Bench: 3 Judges

India United Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay

In the result, the appeal fails, and is dismissed with

CIVIL APPEAL No. 160/1953Supreme Court28 Oct 1954

Bench: 5 Judges

Section 15Section 26(3)Section 66(1)