Supreme Court says interest-free loans given to bank employees taxable as ‘fringe benefits’ | DETAILS

0
32
Supreme Court says interest-free loans given to bank employees taxable as ‘fringe benefits’ | DETAILS


Image Source : PTI The Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the interest-free or concessional loans offered by banks to their employees are thought-about “fringe benefits” and are topic to taxation. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta emphasised that the mortgage privilege loved by bank employees is distinct and constitutes a “perquisite,” contrasting it with “profit in lieu salary,” which serves as a type of reward or compensation for previous or future companies.

What did the court docket say? 

“It is incidental to employment and in excess of or in addition to the salary. It is an advantage or benefit given because of employment, which otherwise would not be available,” the bench acknowledged, as per the Economic Times. Although the court docket upheld the earnings tax regulation, it clarified that the setting of the State Bank of India’s rate of interest as the benchmark was neither arbitrary nor an unequal train of energy.

“By fixing a single clear benchmark for computation of the perquisite or fringe benefit, the rule prevents ascertainment of the interest rates being charged by different banks from the customers and, thus, checks unnecessary litigation,” the bench mentioned. According to earnings tax rules, the interest-free or concessional mortgage advantages supplied by banks to their employees are deemed taxable as “fringe benefits” or “amenities” if the rate of interest charged by the bank is decrease than the rate of interest set by the State Bank of India’s prime lending price.

Banking Unions problem earnings tax rule in court docket

It must be talked about right here that employees unions and officers’ associations from varied banks challenged Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, citing considerations about their constitutionality. They contended that Rule 3(7)(i) was arbitrary and infringed upon Article 14 of the Constitution by using the prime lending price of the State Bank of India as the benchmark, quite than contemplating the precise rate of interest charged by the bank to a buyer on a mortgage.

ALSO READ: RBI proposes stringent guidelines for funding under-construction tasks: What would be the impression?





Source hyperlink