SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, JJ.
All India Bank Officers’ Confederation – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7708 of 2014 With Civil Appeal No. 18459 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 18460 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 18462 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 18463 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 18461 of 2017, Civil Appeal No. 18464 of 2017, Civil Appeal Nos. 18465-18466 of 2017, Civil Appeal Nos. 18457-18458 of 2017 And Civil Appeal No. 18467 of 2017
Decided On : 07-05-2024
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 17(2)(viii) – Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Rule 3(7)(i) – Fringe benefits – Enactment of subordinate legislation for levying tax on interest free/concessional loans as a fringe benefit is within rulemaking power under Section 17(2)(viii) of Act – Section 17(2)(viii) itself, and enactment of Rule 3(7)(i) is not a case of excessive delegation and falls within parameters of permissible delegation – Section 17(2) clearly delineates legislative policy and lays down standards for rule-making authority – Accordingly, Rule 3(7)(i) is intra vires Section 17(2)(viii) of the Act – Section 17(2)(viii) does not lead to an excessive delegation of ‘essential legislative function’ – Commercial and tax legislations tend to be highly sensitive and complex as they deal with multiple problems and are contingent – This Court would not like to interfere with legislation in question, which prevents possibilities of abuse and promotes certainty – It is not iniquitous, draconian or harsh on taxpayers. (Paras 31 and 34)
Result : Appeals dismissed.
This common judgment decides the appeals filed by staff unions and officers’ associations of various banks, impugning judgments which dismiss their writ petitions, where the vires of Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 19611[For short, “Act”.] or Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 19622[For short, “Rules”.], or both, were challenged.
2. Section 17(2)(viii) of the Act includes in the definition of ‘perquisites’3[Section 17(2) of the Act defines perquisites. It specifies a list of benefits/advantages, incidental to employment, and received in excess of salary, which are made taxable as perquisites. Section 17(2)(viii) is a residuary clause that authorizes a subordinate rule-making authority to prescribe ‘any other fringe benefits or amenities’ that are liable to taxation as ‘perquisites’.], ‘any other fringe benefit or amenity’, ‘as may be prescribed’.4[Before amendments brought in by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, with effect from 01.04.2010, Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act read: “(vi) the value of any other fringe benefit or amenity (excluding the fringe benefits chargeable to tax under Chapter XIIH) as may be prescribed”. Post the amendment, Section 17(2)(viii), in effect contains the same stipulations as erstwhile Section 17(2)(vi), with some modifications. It states: “(viii) the value of any other fringe benefit or amenity as may be prescribed.” Thus, the present Section 17(2)(viii) contains similar stipulations as erstwhile Section 17(2)(vi), reference to Chapter XIIH only being deleted. To retain uniformity, we will be referring to it as Section 17(2)(viii).] Rule 3 of the Rules prescribes additional ‘fringe benefits’ or ‘amenities’, taxable as perquisites, pursuant to Section 17(2)(viii). It also prescribes the method of valuation of such perquisites for taxation purposes. Rule 3(7)(i) of the Rules stipulates that interest-free/concessional loan benefits provided by banks to bank employees shall be taxable as ‘fringe benefits’ or ‘amenities’ if the interest charged by the bank on such loans is lesser than the interest charged according to the Prime Lending Rate5[For short, “PLR”.] of the State Bank of India6[For short, “SBI”.].
3. Section 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i) are challenged on the grounds of excessive and unguided delegation of essential legislative function to the Central Board of Direct Taxes7[For short, “CBDT”.]. Rule 3(7)(i) is also challenged as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as it treats the PLR of SBI as the benchmark instead of the actual interest rate charged by the bank from a customer on a loan.
4. Sections 15 to 17 of the Act relate to income tax chargeable on salaries.
Section 16 prescribes deductions allowable under ‘salaries’.
Section 17 defines the expressions ‘salary’, ‘perquisites’ and ‘profits in lieu of salary’ for Sections 15 and 16.
5. Section 17(1) includes in the definition of ‘salary’: wages, annuity or pension, gratuity, fee, commission, perquisites, or profits in lieu of or in addition to salary or wages, advance of salary, payments received by an employee in respect of leave not availed, annual accretion to the balance at the credit of the employee participating in a recognised provident fund, etc.
6. Section 17(2) relates to ‘perquisites’ and reads:8[Post 01.04.2010.]
(i) the value of rent-free accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer computed in such manner as may be prescribed;
(ii) the value of any accommodation provided to the assessee by his employer at a concessional rate.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this sub-clause, it is clarified that accommodation shall be deemed to have been provided at a concessional rate, if the value of accommodation computed in such manner as may be prescribed, exceeds the rent recoverable from, or payable by, the assessee;
(iii) the value of any benefit or amenity granted or provided free of cost or at c
Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bharat V. Patel
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills
In Re.: The Delhi Laws Act 1912
Hari Shankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1959 SCR 427 [Para 28]
Devidas Gopal Krishnan v. State of Punjab
Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema
Commercial and tax legislations tend to be highly sensitive and complex as they deal with multiple problems and are contingent.
Court upheld the constitutionality of income tax provisions regarding fringe benefits, finding them valid and non-discriminatory.
The amendments to Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are constitutional, addressing legislative gaps without infringing on judicial authority or violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
The court affirmed that the right to receive Dearness Allowance is legally enforceable under Article 21, linking it to human dignity, and rejected the State's financial incapacity as a valid defense ....
Article 14 of Constitution embodies principles of equality before law and equal protection of laws.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.