Held, dismissing the petition, that even if the assessee might be considered a State instrumentality within the definition of article 12 of the Constitution of India, its employees could not be treated at par with Central or State Government employees under Table 1 of rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Merely because the assessee might have adopted the Central Government Rules and pay-scales, etc., by that itself, it could not be said that the assessee was a Central or State Government. The court dismissed the assessee’s special leave petition giving it liberty to file a review petition before the High Court on points other than that concluded, namely, whether or not the assessee could be treated at par with the Central or State Government employees for the purpose of section 17.(AY. 2010-11)
Indian Institute of Science v. Dy. CIT (2022) 446 ITR 418/ 217 DTR 457/ 328 CTR 621/ 289 Taxman 13 (SC) Editorial : Indian Institute of Science v. DY. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 400 (Karn.)(HC) affirmed.
S. 17(2) : Perquisite-Salary-Valuation-Undertaking owned or Controlled by Central Government-Not Central Government-Cannot claim valuation of perquisites under Rule applicable to Government employees. [S. 15, R. 3, Art. 12, 136]