Leave travel concession, house rent allowance, perquisites, and the employer’s own exposure under s.192 when an employee’s claim turns out to be wrong. 48 entries, strongest first, with what each one decided in a sentence. Read down the list, then open the entry that fits your facts. The Salary & Perquisites hub cross-lists everything that touches this area, including entries filed under another subject.
My employer gave me a concessional staff loan. Is the interest I saved taxable as a perquisite? Yes. Interest-free and concessional employer loans are fringe benefits and therefore perquisites, and the Supreme Court upheld both s.17(2)(viii) and the Rule 3(7)(i) valuation pegged to the State Bank of India prime lending rate as neither arbitrary nor contrary to Article 14.
We reimbursed LTC where staff also flew abroad. Are we in default for not deducting TDS? Yes. The Court proceeded on the footing that s.10(5) with Rule 2B covers travel within India by the shortest route, so where employees added foreign legs and took circuitous routes the bank should have deducted under s.192(1) and was an assessee-in-default under s.201 with interest.
My employees exercised stock options but the shares are locked in and non-transferable. Was I supposed to deduct tax on the market value less what they paid? No, on the law as it stood before 1 April 2000. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals and held that the company was not an assessee in default. The shares were locked in for five years, held by the trust, stamped non-transferable and notified as such to the stock exchange, and had to be returned if the employee left. They had no realisable value on the date the option was exercised and there was no cash inflow, so any benefit was notional and its value unascertainable. Section 17(2)(iiia), which supplied the missing valuation mechanism from 1 April 2000, was held not to be clarificatory or retrospective.
The officer has valued my company flat under Rule 3 and added the difference to my salary. I pay the licence fee my employer charges everybody. Must he first prove I actually got a concession in rent? On the law as the Supreme Court found it in 2006, yes: 'concession' in s.17(2)(ii) is a jurisdictional fact, and Rule 3 is only a machinery provision that cannot be reached until the officer has first found as a fact that a concession was given. That space was closed almost at once — the Finance Act 2007 inserted the very deeming provision the Court said the Act did not contain, with retrospective effect from 1 April 2002, so from AY 2002-03 a concession is deemed wherever the value computed under Rule 3 exceeds the rent recovered.
My foreign employees work on rigs in India for a month and then spend a month on standby at home. Is the salary for the off period taxable in India for years before 2000-01? No. The Supreme Court held that salary paid for field breaks spent in the United Kingdom was not earned in India for assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. Under the Explanation to section 9(1)(ii) as it stood from 1979, only salary payable for service rendered in India was deemed earned in India, and these employees rendered no service here in the off period; they were training and standing by for work anywhere in the world. The Explanation substituted in 1999, which brings in rest and leave periods, takes effect from 1 April 2000 and does not reach back.
For old years, was an interest-free loan from my employer taxable as a perquisite? No - but only for years before the charge was specifically provided for. The Supreme Court held that granting an interest-free or concessional loan to an employee does not result in a taxable benefit or perquisite 'unless specifically so provided', reading the 1984 insertion and 1985 omission as Parliament declining to tax it.
My Indian contract says my pay is free of Indian tax and the Indian company pays the tax for me. Is that tax itself taxable in my hands? Yes. The Supreme Court held that tax paid by an Indian company on an expatriate's salary, under an obligation to pay him free of Indian tax, is itself income of the expatriate. The definition in section 2(24) is inclusive and does not rob income of its natural meaning; anything properly described as income is taxable unless exempted. The payment was made for and on behalf of the assessee, was not gratuitous, and had an integral connection with the salary he received. Since he was not an employee of the company that paid, it fell under section 56 as income from other sources. The appeals were dismissed.
We pay our salesmen a turnover commission on top of salary and contribute to the provident fund on both. Is the contribution on the commission deductible? Yes. The Supreme Court held that commission payable to salesmen as a term of the contract of employment, at a fixed percentage of turnover, is salary within rule 2(h) of Part A of the Fourth Schedule, so the provident fund contribution referable to it is deductible under section 36(1)(iv). Salary and wages both mean remuneration for work done, and it makes no difference that one part is measured by time and the other by turnover; the whole remuneration partakes of the character of salary. The Court also held that while recognition of the fund stands, the assessing authorities cannot question whether it meets the conditions for recognition.
I draw a salary from my firm, which grows and manufactures tea. Only 40 per cent of the firm's income is taxable as business income - is my whole salary taxable, or only 40 per cent of it? Only the taxable proportion. The Supreme Court held that a firm is not a legal person, and since a contract of service needs two distinct persons there can be no contract of employment between a firm and its own partner. A salary agreed to a partner is therefore a special share of profits - profits under another name - and takes the character of the firm's income. Where the composite income from tea is apportioned so that 60 per cent is agricultural and beyond the Union's reach, 60 per cent of the partner's salary shares that character too. The position is different for a stranger who is not a partner.
I am the karta and my family's funds bought the shares that qualified me to be managing director. Is my managing director's salary my own income or the family's? Your own, on these facts. The Supreme Court held that the managing director's remuneration received by Raj Kumar Singh was assessable as his individual income and not as the income of his Hindu undivided family. The broad test is whether the remuneration was in substance a return to the family for the investment of its funds in the business, or compensation for the services of the individual coparcener. Here he was elected managing director by the board, was paid for personal services, and was not appointed as a result of any outlay or detriment to family property. The office was one of personal responsibility and ability.
My employer pays part of the premium on a superannuation policy, but I get nothing unless I stay until retirement. Is that contribution taxable as a perquisite in my hands now? No, on the scheme as it stood. The Supreme Court held that the employer's contribution was not a perquisite allowed to, or due to, the employee. Until he reached the age of superannuation the money vested in the trustees, and who would benefit depended on which contingency happened: if he left, was dismissed or died in service, he got back only his own share of the premiums, and the employer's share, subject to the trustees' discretion, went back to the employer. The employee had at best a contingent right. A perquisite cannot be allowed to an employee who has no right to it.
If the payment for the fall in option value is not salary, is it capital gains? On this decision, neither. The Karnataka High Court held that compensation for the diminution in value of stock options that were never exercised is a capital receipt not chargeable under any head, and quashed the order rejecting the employee's application for a nil withholding certificate.
I got shares under my employer's stock purchase scheme but they were locked in and I could not sell them. Can the department tax me on the difference between the stock exchange price and what I paid? No. The Delhi High Court held that where the shares carry a lock-in and cannot be traded or sold, the fair market value cannot be taken above the face value, so on these facts the determinative figure was Rs 15 per share. The quoted stock exchange price was irrelevant because the shares could not be sold in the open market. The valuation report the employer had obtained from its accountants, putting the value at Rs 22.50, was at best a means for the employer to gauge its withholding obligations and could not fix fair market value for the employee. The assessee's appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order set aside.
Is compensation for the fall in value of stock options taxable as salary if I keep the options? Yes, on this decision. The Madras High Court held that where the employee paid nothing for the options and kept all of them after receiving the compensation, the whole receipt was a perquisite taxable under the head Salaries, and refused the nil-deduction certificate sought under s.197.
My employer paid me for the fall in value of options I never exercised. Is that a perquisite? No, on this decision. The Delhi High Court held that a one-time voluntary payment made to holders of unexercised stock options after a group disinvestment was not a perquisite under s.17(2)(vi), because the value of specified securities depends on the exercise of the option and no option had been exercised. The refusal of a nil-deduction certificate under s.197 was set aside.
I'm a consultant doctor at a hospital. Can the AO reopen and tax my fees as salary? Not on this material. The Madras High Court set aside the s.148A(d) order and s.148 notice: the contracts showed professional autonomy, a variable fee tied to patient volume, no statutory employment benefits and freedom to practise privately, so there was no information suggesting escapement of income.
Staff booked a consolidated package tour with a foreign leg. Can we exempt the Indian part as LTC? No. Where the tour operator charges a consolidated amount for the whole journey including the domestic portion, there is no severable Indian leg on which s.10(5) can operate, and the employer was rightly treated as an assessee in default under s.201(1) and s.201(1A).
I am the employer. I treated the uniform allowance as exempt on my employees' self-certification and did not call for bills. The TDS officer has made me an assessee in default under s.201. Was I obliged to verify that each employee actually spent the money? No. The High Court held that the employer's liability under s.192 is to deduct tax to the extent of the employee's taxable income, and that where part of that income is exempt there is no liability to deduct from it. A certificate from the employee that he has incurred the expenditure is adequate for the disbursing officer when computing the tax deductible; whether the employee can in fact substantiate the claim is a matter for the employee's own assessment and has no bearing on the employer's estimate. The demand under s.201(1) and the consequential interest were rightly deleted.
I retired from a nationalised bank. Am I a government employee for the full leave encashment exemption under s.10(10AA)? No. The Delhi High Court rejected that challenge. Employees of public sector undertakings and nationalised banks do not become Central or State Government employees merely because their employer is treated as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, so their leave encashment is exempt only under the capped second limb of s.10(10AA)(ii). On the separate grievance that the notified ceiling had not been revised since 1998 the Court expressed only a prima facie view and issued notice; that part of the petition was still pending in 2026.
I am a non-resident. I worked on a foreign employer's ship outside India for most of the year and was paid by that foreign company. The department says the salary is taxable in India. Where does salary accrue? Where the services are rendered. The Calcutta High Court held that for a non-resident, whose total income is governed by s.5(2), the place of accrual has to be found, and for that purpose the place where the services were rendered is what matters; the source of the income is not relevant. A marine engineer who had rendered services outside India for 286 days and had received his remuneration from a foreign company had received income outside India, and both the s.143(1) intimation and the s.264 order were set aside.
A company withdrew my job offer before I joined and paid me compensation. Is that taxable as salary? No. The Delhi High Court held that s.17(3)(iii) presupposes an employment, that is a relationship of employer and employee between the payer and the recipient. Where the offer was withdrawn before the employment began, no such relationship ever existed, and the amount paid for non-commencement of employment was a capital receipt, not taxable as profits in lieu of salary or as income from other sources.
My employer gave me a lump sum on top of my normal dues when I resigned, described in the letter as a one-off ex gratia. The officer says it is profits in lieu of salary. Is it? Not under s.17(3)(i), because clause (i) taxes 'compensation' and a payment the employer makes voluntarily, in its own discretion, with no vested right in the employee, is not compensation. But do not stop there: the Delhi High Court reached that result only because the assessment year was 2001-02, and it said in terms that s.17(3)(iii), inserted with effect from 1 April 2002, 'would squarely cover the nature of payment received by the assessee'. For AY 2002-03 onwards an ex gratia received after cessation of employment is taxable as salary.
I received a settlement from a foreign state employer for a job I applied for but was never given. The officer says s.17(3)(iii) taxes anything received before joining employment. Does it reach me? No. Section 17(3)(iii) presupposes an employment with the person paying: sub-clause (A) covers the period before the assessee joins that employment and sub-clause (B) the period after it ceases. Where there never was and never could have been an employer-employee relationship, the receipt is not profits in lieu of salary at all, and compensation for having been denied the job is a capital receipt.
My employer's early retirement scheme does not spell out every condition in Rule 2BA. Does that destroy the s.10(10C) exemption? Not on these facts. The Bombay High Court upheld the exemption for employees who took the Reserve Bank of India's Optional Early Retirement Scheme, holding that the six requirements of Rule 2BA were satisfied expressly or by implication on the material on record, including evidence that the vacancies were not filled. That is what the decision is still good for. Its second holding — that relief under s.89 is available on the amount above Rs 5,00,000 in addition to the exemption — states the law only for assessment years up to 2009-10. From assessment year 2010-11 the proviso to s.89 and the third proviso to s.10(10C), inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010, make the exemption and the relief alternatives, and claiming s.89 relief forfeits the Rs 5,00,000 exemption 'in relation to such, or any other, assessment year'. The Court also applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Hero Cycles that a Board circular binds the Assessing Officer but not the appellate authorities, the Tribunal or the Court.
I took voluntary retirement. Can I claim both the s.10(10C) exemption and s.89 relief on the balance? Only for assessment years up to 2009-10. The Bombay High Court held that a voluntary retirement payment is compensation received in connection with the termination of employment and so is 'profits in lieu of salary' under s.17(3), and that relief under s.89 was therefore available on the amount taxed over and above the Rs 5,00,000 exempted by s.10(10C). That was the position for the year before the Court, assessment year 2002-03. From assessment year 2010-11 the two are alternatives by statute: the proviso to s.89 and the third proviso to s.10(10C), both inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1 April 2010, mean that claiming the s.10(10C) exemption bars s.89 relief on the same receipt, and that taking s.89 relief forfeits the exemption — not only for that year but 'in relation to such, or any other, assessment year'. What survives of this decision is its holding that a voluntary retirement payment is 'profits in lieu of salary' under s.17(3).
I took VRS from a bank and claimed the Rs 5 lakh exemption under section 10(10C). Can I also claim spread-over relief under section 89(1) on the balance? Yes, for the years this judgment governs. The Madras High Court held that exemption under section 10(10C) up to Rs 5 lakh and relief under section 89(1) on the balance VRS compensation are two separate benefits, and nothing in the Act barred taking both. The second proviso to section 10(10C) only stops a second exemption under that clause in another assessment year; it says nothing about section 89(1). VRS compensation is a profit in lieu of salary under section 17(3), so section 89(1) applies to it. The Department's appeal was dismissed.
My VRS compensation is being paid to me in instalments over ten years. Does the section 10(10C) exemption still apply, or is it lost once the payments cross into later years? It still applies. The Calcutta High Court held that the whole compensation became due when the employee was released under the scheme and was chargeable under section 15(a) at that point, whether paid or not. Spreading the payment over ten years does not turn the later instalments into salary of those later years, so the second proviso to section 10(10C) is not attracted. The exemption up to Rs 5 lakh runs on the compensation component alone. Terminal benefits paid under the same scheme, such as gratuity and leave encashment, are not part of the amount received on voluntary retirement and are not covered.
I spend my own money to earn the incentive part of my pay. Can I deduct that expenditure before the amount is taxed as salary? No. Once a receipt falls under the head Salaries, the only deductions available are those s.16 allows; there is no provision permitting expenses incurred to earn salary to be taken out at the threshold, and 'income' in s.15 does not mean net of such expenses. An LIC development officer's incentive bonus is in the nature of commission, falls within the inclusive definition of salary in s.17(1)(iv), and is taxable in full.
The board passed a resolution after the year end stopping my remuneration because the company made no profit. The salary had already been credited to me month by month. Can I say it never accrued? No, on the Madras High Court's 1965 decision under s.7 of the 1922 Act, whose accrual principle s.15 of the 1961 Act carries forward. Once salary has accrued under the contract of service, a resolution passed after the close of the year cannot undo the accrual; at most it operates as a waiver, and a waiver after accrual is a disposal of income already earned, not a failure of income to arise. The real-income doctrine, which lets a managing agent's commission given up on grounds of commercial expediency be excluded from business income, does not extend to the accrual or receipt of salary.
My s.89 relief on salary arrears was disallowed in the intimation because Form 10E was not filed with the return. Is it lost? Not necessarily. The Pune Tribunal restored the claim to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify it and allow the relief, where the assessee had filed Form 10E only years after the intimation. The Bench followed coordinate bench decisions holding that a delay in filing the form should not by itself defeat a relief the assessee is otherwise entitled to.
I filed my return under the new regime by default, then filed a revised return within time switching to the old regime and claiming my exemptions and Chapter VI-A deductions. The CPC has processed it under the new regime saying the regime cannot be changed in a revised return. Can it? On this order, yes, for a salaried assessee with no business or professional income. The Tribunal held that a revised return filed in time under s.139(5) supersedes the original, that the proviso to s.115BAC(6) restricting the number of times the option may be exercised does not apply where there is no business or professional income, and that the filing of Form 10-IEA is procedural — the delay in filing it was condoned and the fact of filing it satisfied the requirement. The Assessing Officer was directed to process the revised return under the old regime with the exemptions and deductions claimed.
The company bought back my vested options before I exercised them. Salary or capital gains? Capital gains, on this order, and on a fact that does real work. The shares of the Singapore parent were not listed, so the assessee could never exercise his options. Section 17(2)(vi) charges the value of a specified security allotted or transferred to the employee and values it on the date the option is exercised; with no exercise and no allotment there was no specified security and no way to value one, so the salary charge failed. The vested option was itself a capital asset - a right to subscribe to shares - and its repurchase was a relinquishment, so the consideration fell under s.45. The Tribunal said in terms that this leaves the ordinary case alone: exercise the option and the perquisite charge applies as usual.
I claimed HRA on rent paid to my wife. We are co-owners of the flat and we live in it together. The officer has disallowed it. What exactly will sink the claim? Four things sank it here, and any one of them is dangerous: the assessee was himself a co-owner of the accommodation, there was no rent agreement, no monthly rent outgo could be traced in the bank account, and the recipient's return of income showing the rent as her income was never produced — not before the Assessing Officer, not before the Commissioner (Appeals), and not before the Tribunal. On those facts the Tribunal dismissed the ground in a paragraph.
My employer allowed my HRA and conveyance allowance in Form 16 after taking my Form 12BB with the landlord's name, address and PAN. The CPC has still added them back. Does the employer's Form 16, backed by the Rule 26C declaration, carry the claim? On these facts, yes. The Tribunal held the assessee eligible for the s.10(13A) exemption of Rs 7,41,983 and the s.10(14) conveyance allowance of Rs 19,200 because the claim was supported by the requisite documents — bank statement as proof of payment, the declaration under Rule 26C, Form 12BB carrying the landlord's name, address, PAN and rent receipts, and a Form 16 in which the employer had allowed both exemptions after satisfying itself — and because the Commissioner (Appeals) had ignored all of that. The Form 16 was disputed neither by the Commissioner (Appeals) nor by the Departmental Representative.
CPC disallowed my client's s.89 relief on arrears of salary because Form 10E had not been filed when the return was processed. He filed it later. Is the relief gone? No. Filing Form No. 10E is a procedural requirement, and the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to accept a Form 10E filed after the s.143(1) intimation and to grant the relief after verification. The Indore Bench reasoning it follows is that where a prescribed form goes to a relief or exemption, courts hold the requirement procedural and allow the substantive benefit even on a belated form, absent mala fides.
I pay rent to my wife, who owns the flat. Will my HRA exemption survive? The reported outcome is that the exemption was allowed for AY 2020-21, the flat being registered in the wife's name, she servicing the loan on it and having declared the rent in her own return. That account comes from a digest listing. The order is unreported and could not be found in a full-text subscription research database on any of three searches, so no paragraph of it has been read and nothing in this entry is corroborated by a primary source. For a sourced authority on the same point, lead with Abhay Kumar Mittal v. Dy. CIT [2022] 136 taxmann.com 78/194 ITD 224 (Delhi)(Trib.).
We pay guest lecturers monthly. Should we deduct under 194J, and are we in default if we didn't? No. The Tribunal found the guest faculty did the same work as the regular staff, under the institution's control and supervision, so the engagement was a contract of service and not a contract for services and they rendered no professional or technical service - s.194J was not attracted. It added that each person's ad hoc remuneration was below the taxable limit anyway, so nothing fell to be deducted and no default under s.201(1) or s.201(1A) could be visited on the institute. The demand was directed to be deleted.
The AO clubbed my wife's rental income with mine and denied my HRA. Is that right? No. The Tribunal found the sources for the wife's purchase of the house were proved and never doubted, so s.64(1)(ii) had no foundation; there is no legal impediment to paying house rent to your wife, and the HRA exemption could not be denied.
The AO added my performance bonus to salary and cut my HRA exemption. Can he do that? No. 'Salary' for the house rent allowance exemption is not the general definition in s.17 but the one in clause (h) of rule 2 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule, which rule 2A picks up: it takes in basic salary and dearness allowance where the terms of employment so provide, and excludes all other allowances. A performance bonus therefore stays out, the ten per cent test ran on the basic salary of Rs 30 lakhs, and the assessee was held entitled to about Rs 5.20 lakhs of exemption.
My employees claim HRA and home loan interest together. Must I treat that as a double benefit? No, not on these facts. The point was ground 2 of a composite order under s.201 and s.271C. The first appellate authority had held the exemption and the interest deduction to be two independent provisions, each with its own conditions, and the Tribunal upheld that because the department could not controvert it, so the short deduction and the consequential penalty both fell away. The employees concerned had let out the houses they owned and were living in rented premises, with the whole of the interest set against rental income and the exemption claimed on the rent they actually paid.
What evidence does the department actually need before it will accept HRA on rent paid to my mother? More than rent receipts. The Tribunal denied the exemption for three years on rent said to be paid to the assessee's mother, holding the arrangement a sham: there was no leave and licence agreement, the rent was paid in cash with nothing in the bank, the mother had not returned the rent as her income, and an inspector found the assessee actually living in her own flat nearby.
I pay rent to my wife for the flat she owns and we live in it together. The officer says the whole thing is a colourable device and has disallowed my HRA. Is living under the same roof as my landlord by itself fatal? No. The Tribunal read s.10(13A) with its own Explanation and held that the provision imposes only two conditions — that the assessee occupies the accommodation, and that he has actually incurred expenditure on rent — and that neither of them is broken merely because the landlord is his wife and lives in the same house. Where rent receipts were produced and the payments were traceable to bank transfers, the exemption was restored even though the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) had both branded the arrangement a device.
We pay our staff a fixed monthly attire allowance and washing allowance and treat it as exempt under s.10(14). Nobody actually wears a uniform. Can the TDS officer make us an assessee in default? Yes. The Tribunal held that Rule 2BB(1)(f) exempts expenditure incurred on the purchase or maintenance of a uniform for wear during the performance of duties, and that where the employees wore dress of different colour, different design and texture according to their own choice, there was no uniform and nothing to show the allowance was granted to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of duties. Tax was required to be deducted on both the attire allowance and the washing allowance, and the employer was in default under s.201(1).
My employer pays my Indian tax under a net of tax contract. Must the tax on that tax be grossed up again, or is it exempt under section 10(10CC)? It is exempt, so there is only one round of grossing up. The Delhi Special Bench held that tax paid by an employer on an employee's behalf is a perquisite under section 17(2)(iv) - the discharge of an obligation which the employee would otherwise have had to meet - and is not a perquisite provided by way of monetary payment. Section 10(10CC) excludes only monetary payments to the assessee, and a payment to a third party, here the Government, is not one. So the tax borne by the employer is added to salary once, and no further tax on that tax is added. The earlier Delhi Bench decisions in B.J. Services and Western Geo were held to be wrong.
Our US employer has seconded a telecom manager to India and is bearing his Indian tax. He has no formal technical qualification and cannot produce his certificates. Can he still be a technician for the s.10(5B) exemption? Yes, on the law as it then stood. The Authority ruled that Vance Robert Heffern, seconded by ALLTEL Information Services International Holding Inc. to its group company in India as a telecom manager, qualified as a technician under s.10(5B), and that the taxes borne by his employer were exempt for forty-eight months from his arrival in India. Neither his inability to produce educational certificates nor the absence of technical education was a disqualification, because specialised knowledge may be obtained either by education or by special experience; his fourteen years in the ALLTEL group and the work he was doing in India fell within the notified field of information technology. Section 10(5B) has since been deleted from the Act.
Our American employee spent 76 days in India working at our group's Indian branch. The branch meets his housing, car and utility bills locally, but the US parent reimburses the branch. Is his salary taxable in India? No. The Authority ruled that a US-resident executive posted to the Indian branch of a US subsidiary was not liable to tax in India on his remuneration, because all three conditions of article 16(2) of the India-US agreement were met. He was present in India for 76 days in 1997-98, well under 183 days; his remuneration was paid by Whirlpool Corporation, a US employer; and although the Indian branch met his local costs in the first instance, the US parent reimbursed them by periodic remittances, so the burden was not borne by a permanent establishment or fixed base in India. Having answered that, the Authority did not go into quantification. The ruling binds only the applicant.
I am a British engineer working for an Indian joint venture on a cellular network and my employer pays my tax. Am I a technician entitled to the exemption? Yes, on both counts. The Authority first rejected the Department's preliminary objection that the question was already pending because the applicant had filed his return after applying: what the proviso to section 245R(2) prohibits is raising before the Authority questions that were being agitated in other fora on the date of the application. It then held that the applicant was a technician in the field of information technology for section 10(5B), rejecting the argument that information technology means only computer data processing, because a cellular network is a medium for dissemination through a system of computers and is essentially a computer network. All four statutory conditions being met, the exemption was available.
I am a Swedish national deputed to India to set up a digital cellular network. Am I a technician for section 10(5B), and does a return filed after applying spoil my application? Yes to the first, no to the second. The Authority rejected the Department's objection that the question was already pending because the applicant had filed his return after applying to the Authority: the prohibition operates only on questions being agitated in another forum on the date of the application. On the merits it held that he was a technician within section 10(5B). It refused the Department's narrow reading of information technology as confined to computer and software systems, holding that a cellular network is a medium for dissemination through the system of computers and is essentially a computer network. The exemption was therefore available to him.
Nothing here is written from memory. Every entry was found through a search, and the page for it links to where it was found, so you can check it rather than take our word for it. What has not happened yet is the part that matters most: nobody has read the certified copy of each judgment and signed off the summary against it. Until that is done, each page says Not yet CA-verified, and it means exactly what it says. Read the source before you rely on an entry in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.