Salries:

CIT v. R.R. Bajoria [(1988) 169 ITR 162 (Cal)]

Direct Taxation - assessment - Sections 2 and 10 of Income Tax Act, 1961 - assessee member of Indian Revenue Service liable
to be transferred and posted to any city in India - assessee claimed that amounts received by him as city compensatory
allowance not to be included in total income - by virtue of explanation to Section 10 allowance provided to meet expenses
wholly necessarily and exclusively incurred in performance of duties shall not be computable in income of assessee - on basis
of fundamental rules governing service conditions assessee claimed to be entitled to relief - city compensatory allowance did
not confer advantage on assessee - held, such allowance could not be charged to tax.

CIT v. L.W. Russel [AIR 1965 SC 49]

The co-operative society established a scheme to effect a policy of insurance for the purpose of ensuring annuity to every
employee when he had attained the age of superannuation or some specified contingency had happened - Further, in the said
scheme both employer and employee would make the contributions - The case questioned whether the amount paid by the
employer towards the premium payable by the employee was taxable under Section 7(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 Moreover, the case focused on the meaning of prerequisite under the Act - The Court ruled that as a vested interest in the sum did
not accrue to the employee, therefore it was not taxable - Further, prerequisite is the amount allowed to the employee by or due to
him from the employer or is paid to him to effect an insurance on his life.
INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY
R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [(971) 3 SCC 369]
Direct Taxation evacuee property Sections 9, 9 (1), 11, 14 (1), 16 (1), 19, 20 (1), 20 (2) and 22 (1) of Income-tax Act, 1922,
Section 17 of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, Section 18 of Finance Act, 1920, Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee
Property) Ordinance and Article 19 (1) of Constitution of India whether assessee continued to be owner of property for purpose
of Section 9 assessee purchased certain property in Lahore which after creation of Pakistan declared as evacuee property
consequently property vested in custodian in Pakistan on basis of pre-decided case held that assessee cannot be considered as
owner of property for purpose of Section 9.
CIT v. Poddar Cement (P) Ltd. [AIR 1997 SC 2523]
]Direct Taxation - Income from House Property - Section 22 of Income Tax Act, 1961 - Tribunal and Appellate authority held that
income from flats should be assessed as income from house property under Section 22 and not as income from other sources
under Section 56 of Act - High Court reversed finding of Tribunal - Hence, this Appeal - Whether, income derived by Assessee
from flats was taxable under head income from other sources and not income from house property - Held, in common law owner
mean a person who had got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with requirements of law such as Transfer of
Property Act, Registration Act, etc - However, in context of Section 22 of IT Act having regard to ground realities and further
having regard to object of IT Act, owner was a person who was entitled to receive income from property in his own right Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in holding that income derived by Assessee from flats was taxable under head income from
other sources - Thus, Civil Appeal No. 4165/94 dismissed and Civil Appeal No. 4549/ allowed
CIT v. Benam Behari Shah, Shebiat [(1968) 61 ITR 815 (Cal)]
Direct Taxation - Correctness of order - Whether Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that premises had no bona fide annual
value within meaning of section 9(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922? - Held, Tribunal was not correct in holding that, in view of
injunction contained in will against residence of any body in premises, premises had no letting value - That injunction would be
or relevant consideration in finding out bona fide value and whether of injunction may very much reduce bona fide letting value
of house, but because of existence of injunction, premises cannot be said to have no letting value, notional or otherwise Question answered in affirmative and in favour of revenue.