YOSHIO KUBO vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Del) 922

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, R.V.EASWAR
YOSHIO KUBO – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Rajiv Tyagi with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. Gyanendra Sharma and Ms. Renu Narula, Advocates, for respondent in ITA 379/07.
Mr. Pawan Sharma with Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Advocates, in ITA 15/2010.
Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate, in ITA 450/10 & ITA 534/10.
Ms. Amita Kalkal Chaudhary, Proxy for Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, in ITA 1354/10.
Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pawan Sharma, Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Ms. Roohina Dua and Ms. Preeti Goel, Advocates, in ITA 577/10.
Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta Trana Panda, Advocates, in ITA 1912/10.
Ms. Shreya Verma, Advocate, for Respondent in ITA 681/07 & ITA 1215/08.
Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Vikas Jain, Mr. Manomeet Dalal and Ms. Preity Goel, Advocates, for Respondents in ITA 212/09, ITA 1556/10, 1561/10, 1369/10, 370/11, 494/10, 508/10 and ITA 631/10.

Judgment

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This common judgment disposes a bunch of appeals in which the court had framed several questions of law. The important questions pertain to the applicability of Section 10 (10CC) of the Income Tax Act; others are whether mandatory social security and medical insurance or benefits paid in the country of the assessee, are taxable. Apart from these, other questions too require consideration and answer.

Question No. 1: Are amounts paid towards income tax by the employer on behalf of the assessee non-monetary perquisites, and do they consequently fall within the scope of Section 10 (10CC) of the Act.

The present issue arises for consideration in ITA Nos. 1990/2010; 450/2012, 534/2010; 1556/2010; 1557/2010; 494/2010; 508/2010; 577/2010; 631/2010; 1912/2010; 528/2011; 212/2009; 15/2010; 408/2010; 528/2011; 351/2010; 635/2010; 1354/2010; 1561/2010; 1912/2010.

Contentions of the revenue

2. This question arises in the above appeals preferred by the Revenue. The assessee in all the cases were recipients or beneficiaries of what can be termed as “tax-free” or “tax paid income”, i.e. the tax arising out of the income earned by them from their non-resident but taxa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(Del) 922

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, R.V.EASWARYOSHIO KUBO – AppellantVersusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Respondent

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, R.V.EASWAR
YOSHIO KUBO – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Respondent