employed
2574 Points
Joined May 2008
Hi friends
How has this case been superceded?
By which finance act and/or which judgement?
We still dont have a clear cut definition of "Scholarship" for the purpose of 10(16), but in parlance, it means
"A grant of financial aid awarded to a student, as for the purpose of attending a college.",
which i feel the courts will view liberally, because the act only refers to scholarship granted for the purpose of education, (again, just education, no tags attached)
On what basis do we step over the HC decision in 1983? ICAI minimum stipend is not even enough to meet the cost of education!! Lolz.... It is not possible to draw the line hard and fast for all cases...
Till there is something concrete pointing to the contrary, Saranraj has the first and last answer to this question.
I am also personally of the view that gargantuan stipends should be taxed as salary, cos form 102 and 103 clearly provide the status of employer to the CA.
(and of course, they are not entirely for just meeting the cost of education, there is a clear reward for work in such large stipends) All said and done, TDS is being deducted u/s 192 for such people....