Joint Cit, Special Range-30 vs Pramod Bhasin on 20 January, 2006
3. CIT v. G. Hyatt (1971) 80 ITR 177 (SC);
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.62 seconds)K. Gangadhar Ramareddy vs Income-Tax Officer on 26 December, 1995
Section 17(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, defines the expression 'salary' for the purpose of Sections 15, 16 and 17 by way of an inclusive definition Salary for tax purposes includes any pension. Section 15 enumerates the income which shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Salaries'. Section 16 provides that income chargeable under the head 'Salaries' shall be computed after making deductions mentioned in Section 16. It is merely a provision defining the expression 'salary' [see CIT v. G. Hyatt [1971] 80 ITR 177 (SC)]. Under Section 15, all payments made to the holder of an office or employment as such by way of remuneration for services would be treated as salary. The sine qua non or prerequisite for chargeability under the head 'Salaries' is that there must exist relationship of employee and employer between the assessee and the person making the payment. If any payment has to be regarded as salary within the meaning of Sections 15 to 17, the relationship of employer and employee has to be established. In other words, for being taxable as 'salary' payment must be due from an employer to the assessee.
Dharam Prakash Jain vs Income-Tax Officer on 17 September, 1984
16. The decision in CIT v. G;R. Karthikeyan [1980] 124 ITR 85 (Mad.) is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In that case, the assessee participated in a race which involved a skill in the performance of driving of the vehicle. He had to cover a very long distance and had to qualify by getting the least of the penalty points. The idea obviously was to encourage the motorists to comply with all the regulations. It was not mere speed that counts. Perhaps, in the said case, speed would be only a secondary thing for winning the race, in the sense that he had to complete the race within the particular time but the emphasis is on the least number of penalty points being incurred by the motorists concerned.
Kishan Lal vs Income-Tax Officer on 7 May, 1990
4. CIT v. G:D. Naidu [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Mad.).
Rajiv Nagar Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. vs Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 28 July, 2003
In Commissioner of Income Tax v. G. Hyatt, Vide AIR 1971 SC 725, the question was whether under Section 17(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the interest on the assessee's own contribution to an unrecognized provident fund could be treated as salary. The Supreme Court of India held that the language of Section 17(3) was plain and unambiguous and hence, the said amount was not salary but income from other sources and taxable under Section 56.
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. [Alongwith ... on 5 April, 2004
In CIT v. G. Hyatt AIR 1971 SC 725, the question was whether under Section 17(3) of the IT Act, 1961, the interest on the assessee's own contribution to an unrecognised provident fund could be treated as salary. The Supreme Court of India held that the language of Section 17(3) was plain and unambiguous, and hence the said amount was not salary but income from other sources and hence taxable under Section 56.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Dipali Goswami on 22 April, 1985
17. Section 17(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, defines the expression "salary "for the purpose of Sections 15, 16 and 17 by way of an inclusive definition. Salary for tax purposes includes any pension. Section 15 enumerates the income which shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head " Salaries ". Section 16 provides that income chargeable under the head " Salaries " shall be computed after making deductions mentioned in Section 16. Section 17 has nothing to do either with deductions or with exemptions. It is merely a provision defining the expression "salary" (see CIT v. G. Hyatt ). Under Section 15, all payments made to the holder of an office or employment as such by way of remuneration for services would be treated as salary. The sine qua non or prerequisite for chargeability under the head " Salaries " is that there must exist relationship of employee and employer between the assessee and the person making the payment. If any payment has to be regarded as salary within the meaning of Sections 15 to 17, the relationship of employer and employee has to be established. In other words, for being taxable as " salary ", payment must be due from an employer to the assessee. In this case, there is no privity of contract or contractual relationship between the assessee and the United Nations. There is no relationship of employer and employee by and between the assessee and the United Nations. She has not rendered any services in consideration of which any payment can be made to her by the employer of her husband. If one takes the amount paid by the employer of her husband to the widow simpliciter, in that event it would be ex-gratia payment in the nature of gift. In that event, such pension would not be taxable at all in the hands of the widow, far less as salary. In this case, the ITO sought to tax the pension under the head "Salaries" since, under Section 17, "Salary" includes any pension. The very fact that the pension received by the widow is sought to be taxed as salary would show that the receipt has nexus with the employment of the husband. Pension is generally paid in consideration of past services. Pension is paid to an employee following his retirement from service due to age or disability or to the surviving dependants of an employee entitled to such pension. It may also represent a portion of employee's retirement income accumulated in the Pension Fund to which the employee had to contribute. Pension is one of the very important terms and conditions of employment which is earned by an employee by rendering requisite period of service and its receipt is one of the incidents of employment. Payment of pension is part of the consideration for the services rendered by the employee. In a sense, the benefits by way of pension and gratuity are in the nature of deferred wages which are paid at the time of retirement or thereafter. The fact that the amount is paid to the widow does not alter the nature of the payment and the widow is merely a recipient as a nominee of her husband. The right to pension either to the employee or to his widow necessarily flows from the past employment of the employee, the assessee's husband. It flows as part of the consideration of the contract of employment and not de hors, or independent of, the contract of employment. Thus, this pension payable to the assessee is referable to the entitlement of the assessee's husband. What is received by the widow is in effect the benefit earned by the assessee's husband as an official of the United Nations. That is the reason why such benefit is assessed under the head "Salaries" although there is no contractual relationship of employer and employee between the widow and the United Nations. Even if pension is not a deferred payment of salary, since the pension in this case is deemed to be salary under Section 17 and is sought to be taxed under Section 15, it must be held to be exempt under the Privileges and Immunities Act, whether received by the official himself or his heir or nominee. It is the nature and character of the receipt and not the character of the recipient that would determine the question whether the receipt is exempt from taxation. What would have been exempt from the hands of the deceased official would necessarily be exempt in the hands of the widow. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the pension paid to the widow of the deceased employee of the United Nations under Article 35 of the Rules and Regulations of the Pension Fund is exempt from income-tax. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
M. Krishna Murthy And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... on 15 June, 1984
34. CIT v. Hyatt is a case where the payment by the employer to the employee of interest on employer's contribution to the provident fund was under consideration. It was It was held that it was specifically excluded from the purview of profit in lieu of salary as defined under s. 17(3)(ii).
Ojas Industries P. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through Secretary ... on 22 December, 2005
44. The same view has been taken in CIT v. G. Hyatt .
National Stock Exchange Member vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 November, 2005
The same view has been taken in CIT v. G Hyatt .