Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AAR Income Tax - 2014 (5) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 630 - AAR - Income TaxRequirement to deduct TDS u/s 192 of the Act – Contribution made to superannuation fund as perquisite – Held that:- The applicant does not get a vested right at the time of contribution to the fund by the employer - The amount standing to the credit of the funds like the pension and fund account, social security of medical or health insurance would continue to remain invested till the assessee becomes entitled to receive it - The vesting right to receive the amount under the scheme or plan did not occur – Relying upon Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala And Coimbatore Versus LW. Russel [1964 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court] - one cannot be said to allow a perquisite to an employee if the employee has no right to the same - It cannot apply to contingent payments to which the employee has no right till the contingency occurs - The employee must have a vested right in the amount. Also in CIT v. Mehar Singh Sampuran Singh Chawla [1972 (5) TMI 6 - DELHI High Court] it has been held that the contribution made by the employee towards a fund established for the welfare of the employees would not be deemed to be a perquisite in the hands of the employees concerned as they do not acquire a vested right in the sum contributed by the employer - when the amount does not result in a direct present benefit to the employee who does not enjoy it, but assures him a future benefit, in the event of contingency, the payment made by the employer, does not vest in the employee - the new Act does not make any significant departure from this aspect – Decided in favour of Applicant.
|