Madras High Court

Bank Employees’ Challenge to Tax on Concessional Loan Benefits Fails as Madras HC Applies Supreme Court Ruling Upholding the Rule

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK vs UNION OF INDIA,

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: October 14, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Bank Employees’ Challenge to Tax on Concessional Loan Benefits Fails as Madras HC Applies Supreme Court Ruling Upholding the Rule. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK vs UNION OF INDIA,. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The South Indian Bank Employees Association filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a declaration that Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph B of the bank’s circular dated 26 October 2009 were unconstitutional and ultra vires the Income-tax Act, 1961

Source reference: p. 2

The challenge to Section 17(2)(viii) of the Act and Rule 3(7)(i) had previously been rejected by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in All India Union Bank Officers v. Union of India (20 April 2016)

Source reference: pp. 2–3

The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed appeals and upheld the relevant provisions

Source reference: pp. 3–5
02

Issues

1. Whether Rule 3(7)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, was unconstitutional or ultra vires the Income-tax Act, 1961

Source reference: pp. 2, 6

2. Whether sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph B of the bank’s circular dated 26 October 2009 was liable to be declared unconstitutional or invalid in light of the prior decisions upholding Rule 3(7)(i)

Source reference: pp. 2, 6
03

Law Applied

Section 17(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act authorises the treatment of prescribed benefits or perquisites as taxable, and Rule 3(7)(i) prescribes the method for valuing the benefit from interest-free or concessional loans by reference to SBI’s rate of interest

Source reference: pp. 3–5

In All India Union Bank Officers v. Union of India (Madras High Court, 20 April 2016), the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 17(2)(viii) and Rule 3(7)(i)

Source reference: p. 3

In All India Bank Officers’ Confederation v. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, 2024 INSC 389, (2024) 464 ITR 284, the Supreme Court upheld the rule-making power and held that using SBI’s rate as a uniform benchmark was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14

Source reference: pp. 3–5
04

Reasoning

The Court considered the challenge to Rule 3(7)(i) to be squarely governed by the earlier Madras High Court decision and the Supreme Court’s subsequent affirmance of that decision

Source reference: p. 6

Since those decisions had upheld the validity of the statutory provision and the rule, the Court found no basis to grant the declaration sought in the present petition

Source reference: p. 6
05

Holding

The Court dismissed the writ petition, rejecting the challenge as covered by the prior decisions upholding Section 17(2)(viii) of the Act and Rule 3(7)(i) of the Rules

It made no order as to costs and closed the interim application

Source reference: p. 6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

2 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.

Income Tax Act, 19611

Section 17

Circular dated 26.10.20091

B
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANKvsUNION OF INDIA,

Madras High Court · October 14, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment