9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Assessability of deferred annuity policy purchased by the employer company in the hands of the assessee. 2. Interpretation of terms of employment and remuneration under the Companies Act, 1956. 3. Applicability of provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Relevance of previous judicial decisions and their applicability to the present case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessability of Deferred Annuity Policy: The core question was whether the deferred annuity policy purchased by the employer company was assessable in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. The Tribunal had held that the amount spent by the company on deferred annuity policies was not assessable as income for the assessee. However, the Income-tax Officer disagreed, adding the amount to the assessee's income, viewing it as a change in the mode of payment of commission. 2. Interpretation of Terms of Employment and Remuneration: The terms of the assessee's appointment were modified by a resolution on January 25, 1972, which allowed the company to purchase deferred annuity policies instead of paying the commission directly. The Central Government clarified that this arrangement did not constitute an increase in remuneration or a variation thereof, and thus did not require its approval. The company spent Rs. 20,000 annually on these policies, which the assessee argued did not accrue as income in the relevant years. 3. Applicability of Provisions under the Income-tax Act, 1961: The relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly sections 15 and 17, were examined. Section 15(b) states that any salary paid or allowed by an employer, even if not due, is chargeable to income-tax. Section 17(2)(v) includes any sum payable by the employer to effect a contract for an annuity as a perquisite, forming part of the salary. The court concluded that the amount spent by the employer on the deferred annuity policy was indeed a perquisite and thus taxable as part of the assessee's salary, irrespective of whether it was due in the previous year. 4. Relevance of Previous Judicial Decisions: The assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. L. W. Russel [1964] 53 ITR 91, which held that amounts spent by a company on annuity contracts were not taxable as salary under the old Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. However, the court noted that the provisions of the old Act were materially different from those of the current Act. The decisions in CIT v. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. [1990] 182 ITR 130 (Bom) and CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC) were also considered but found not directly applicable to the present case. Conclusion: The court concluded that the amount spent by the employer on purchasing the deferred annuity policies was assessable as part of the assessee's salary under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question referred to the court was answered in the negative, against the assessee and in favor of the Department. The judgment emphasized the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act and distinguished the present case from previous judicial decisions based on differences in statutory language and context. There was no order as to costs.
|
