Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.31 seconds)Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 15 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs R.R. Bajoria on 24 July, 1987
In C.I.T.,
Calcutta v. R.R. Bajoria (1988) 169 ITR 162, the Calcutta
High Court considered this argument in detail and arrived at
the conclusion that considering Rule 44 of Fundamental Rules
applicable to the Central Government employees, CCA paid to
them is neither an emolument nor a fee nor a profit nor even
a perquisite but was only a payment for part of the
reimbursement of the extra expenses incurred by the assessee
as of necessity by reason of his posting. The Court
observed the said allowance does not have the character of
income within the meaning and scheme of the Income-tax Act,
1961. This is not an allowance granted to the assessee
specifically to meet his personal expenses but it is an
allowance meant for part reimbursement of the assessee for
the extra expenditure necessarily to be incurred by him as a
result of his being posted in a city.
The Pondicherry Railway Company Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 March, 1931
For this purpose, it is submitted that the word
profits is not defined, but Section 28 of the Act provides
that the income mentioned therein shall be chargeable to
income tax under the head of profits and gains of business
or profession and hence, the word profits is to be
understood under the Act in its natural and proper sense and
as understood since years in commercial terms. Reliance is
placed on the following passage referred to by the Privy
Council in Pondicherry Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner
of Income-tax, Madras (Reported in A.I.R. 1931 Privy
Council 165) dealing with the word profits under the
Income Tax Act.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab vs R. D. Aggarwal & Company on 6 October, 1964
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that assuming for the purpose of profits in lieu of salary,
employer is not required to give any share out of the
profits, yet even in the hands of the employees, receipt of
the amount must be profits. It is his contention that
whatever CCA, Government or Statutory Corporations pay to
the employees, cannot be termed as profits by any standard
because the amount is calculated in such a manner that it
reimburses less than extra cost incurred by them at a
station where they are posted. It is further submitted that
by including these payments as taxable, it would cause
hardship to the honest employees whose source of income is
limited and are required to meet extra expenses at the
station where they are transferred and posted for which
service rules provide for reimbursement of extra cost. He
referred to the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court
in C.I.T. v. D.R. Pathak (1975) 99 ITR 14, wherein the
Court considered whether CCA was taxable as perquisite as
contended by the revenue. The Court negatived it by holding
that payment of taxable allowance under the order of the
Government is neither an emolument nor fee nor profit, but
it is a reimbursement of personal expenses required by the
Government servant to be incurred on account of expenses of
living at a particular place.
Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals And ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madras on 8 July, 1997
Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Madras vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1997) 6 SCC 117].
Therefore, there is no question of referring to the
Fundamental Rules framed by the Central Government or by the
statutory authorities for payment of CCA, HRA or other such
allowance for reimbursing the expenditure incurred by the
employees. Further, equity or hardship would hardly be
relevant ground for interpretation of tax law. It is for
the Government or the statutory bodies to do the needful.
However, equitable it may be that CCA cannot be held to be
profit in the hands of the assessee or it is not share out
of profit, yet it cannot be helped in view of inclusive and
exclusive meaning given under the Act.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs D.R. Phatak on 6 August, 1974
In support of this submission
counsel relied upon the decisions in Commissioner of Income
Tax, Bombay City-I v. D.R. Pathak 99 ITR 14; Bishambar
Dayal v Commissioner of Income Tax, MP 103 ITR 813 and
Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. S.G. Pgnotale 124
ITR 391. It was also contended that the assessee is
entitled to claim exemption in respect of CCA under Section
10(14) of the Income Tax Act and in any case, CCA cannot
come either within the scope of salary or within the
definition of special allowance or perquisite. Hence, it
cannot be termed as income and cannot be included within
the total income and cannot be assessed to tax as per
sections 4 and 5 of the Income Tax Act.