This compilation indexes twelve rulings — drawn from multiple High Courts and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal — in which Section 17 appeared among the sections engaged, all pronounced in 2026. The collection is intended as a starting point for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law-firm researchers who need a quick reference map of recent judicial activity touching Section 17. Each entry records the identity fields as extracted from the source corpus and provides a brief procedural note grounded strictly in the available source preview.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference, not legal or tax advice. Readers must verify every ruling against the full judgment text, check for any subsequent stays or reversals, and consult qualified counsel before acting on any legal position.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 17 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides the definitional framework for "salary," "perquisite," and "profits in lieu of salary" for the purposes of computing income chargeable under the head "Salaries." It enumerates what amounts are included within each of these three categories, thereby delineating the scope of employment income subject to tax. The section is a charging and definitional provision that courts and tribunals frequently refer to when questions arise about the nature of receipts in the hands of employees or the characterisation of employer-provided benefits.

The 12 rulings

1. Dr. Rahul Agrawal vs Union Of India

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 25 August 2026
Sections engaged: 132, 143(3), 153A, 17, 250, 263, 50, 66
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (WPCR No. 473 of 2026) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur by Dr. Rahul Agrawal and M/s Pacifica Hotels India Private Limited against the Union of India and the Directorate of Enforcement. The source preview records the party details and counsel appearances but does not disclose the substantive findings or the final direction of the court in the available extract.

2. Employers In Relation To The Management vs Dharam Singh

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 25 August 2026
Sections engaged: 11, 11A, 17
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(L) No. 7272 of 2005) was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing an Award dated 20.06.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 67 of 1999. The source preview indicates that the tribunal had made findings relating to natural justice in the disciplinary enquiry against the concerned workman, but the final outcome of the writ petition is not disclosed in the available extract.

3. Sri. V. Raghu vs The State Of Karnataka

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 20 August 2026
Sections engaged: 17
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter came before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru as Writ Appeal No. 1156 of 2022 (LA – BDA), consolidated with Writ Appeal No. 1164 of 2022 (LA – BDA), filed by Sri V. Raghu and connected appellants against the State of Karnataka and the Bangalore Development Authority. The source preview records the party details and notes that Appellants 2 and 3 were amended per a court order dated 25.04.2024, but the substantive findings and final direction of the Division Bench are not disclosed in the available extract.

4. K.Satheesh Babu vs The Authorised Officer

Bench: Madras High Court
Date: 20 August 2026
Sections engaged: 17
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 42471 and 42479 of 2025) were reserved on 17.08.2026 and delivered on 20.08.2026 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The petitioners K. Satheesh Babu and connected parties had arrayed the Authorised Officer of Punjab National Bank and the Office of the Tax Recovery Officer, Income Tax Department, TRO Central 2, Chennai as respondents. The source preview records the party and court details but does not disclose the substantive findings or final direction in the available extract.

5. Kanchana Rai vs Directorate Of Enforcement New Delhi &

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 18 August 2026
Sections engaged: 12, 17(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (W.P.(C) 9799/2023 and connected petitions) was reserved on 23rd May 2026 and pronounced on 18th August 2026 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The petitioner Kanchana Rai, along with connected petitioners Aradhya Rai, T.R. Narayanan, Uma Devi, and others, filed writ petitions against the Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi. The source preview records multiple CNR numbers and CM applications but does not disclose the substantive findings or final direction of the court in the available extract.

6. M/S Hindustan Steelwork Constructin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 14 August 2026
Sections engaged: 11(6), 16, 17, 37
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two miscellaneous petitions (M.P. No. 4818/2026 and M.P. No. 4819/2026) were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by M/S Hindustan Steelwork Constructin Ltd before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Both petitions arose out of the same work order dated 24.04.2001 and raised identical questions of law and fact; M.P. No. 4818/2026 was directed against an order dated 18.05.2026 passed by the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran, Bhopal in M.J.C. No. 19/2023, whereby the Adhikaran refused to recall its earlier order dated 24.05.2010 in Reference Case No. 80/2009. The final direction of the court is not disclosed in the available source extract.

7. Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia vs Directorate Of Enforcement

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 12 August 2026
Sections engaged: 17, 20, 34, 50
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The application (B.A. No. 5375 of 2026) was filed before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi under Sections 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, praying for grant of regular bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 05 of 2025, arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2024 dated 23.09.2024, alleging commission of the offence of money laundering pending before the Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Judge under PMLA, Ranchi. The source preview records that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jamshedpur had filed complaint cases referenced in the prosecution's facts, but the final outcome of the bail application is not disclosed in the available extract.

8. Pratibha Vipin Namdev vs Manager India Sheltar Finance

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 10 August 2026
Sections engaged: 10, 13(4), 14, 17(1), 35, 65A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 31691 of 2026) was filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore by Pratibha Vipin Namdev and others against Manager India Sheltar Finance Corporation Limited and others. The source preview records that the court noted, on perusal of the record, that an order had been passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and that the Tehsildar functions strictly as an executive/ministerial officer tasked with execution and lacks statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate upon ownership, title, or the validity of the underlying mortgage. The final direction of the court is not disclosed in the available extract.

9. Kripal Singh Khurana vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Bench: Calcutta High Court
Date: 10 August 2026
Sections engaged: 15, 16, 17, 18, 30
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.O. No. 202 of 2026) was filed before the High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Original Side) by Kripal Singh Khurana, a senior citizen aged about 63 years, praying for a writ of mandamus upon the respondents to permit him to be represented by an Advocate of his choice in proceedings before the Senior Citizen Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The source preview records that hearing concluded on 21.07.2026 and judgment was delivered on 10.08.2026, but the final direction of the court is not disclosed in the available extract.

10. Shri Chaturadasji Maharaj Mandir Vikas vs CIT Exemption, Jaipur, Jaipur

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 12A, 12A(1), 17
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeals (ITA Nos. 889 and 894/Jodh/2024) were heard on 04/08/2026 and pronounced on 06/08/2026 before the ITAT Jodhpur Bench. ITA No. 889/Jodh/2024 arises from the rejection of the assessee's application for regular registration under section 12AB of the Act, while ITA No. 894/Jodh/2024 arises from the cancellation of the provisional registration granted to the assessee on 27.05.2021 under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of section 12A(1) of the Act; the PAN on record is AAKAS2809Q. The final direction of the Tribunal is not disclosed in the available source extract.

11. M/S. Additive 3D vs State Bank Of India

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 13(2), 14, 17
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P. No. 23351 of 2026, GM-DRT) was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru by M/S. Additive 3D, a partnership firm registered under the MSMED Act, 2006, against State Bank of India (represented by its Authorised Officer, SME Branch Tumakuru) and Union of India. The source preview records that the matter was listed for preliminary hearing on the date of the oral order, but the substantive findings and final direction of the court are not disclosed in the available extract.

12. Bhikhan Ganjhu @ Deepak Kumar vs Union Of India Through Nia

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 4 August 2026
Sections engaged: 17, 25
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The criminal appeal (Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1210 of 2024) was filed before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi against an order dated 21.06.2014 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 754/2024 arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 in connection with Special NIA Case No. 03/2018 by the learned Special Judge, N.I.A. at Ranchi. The prayer was for defreezing the petitioner's bank account in Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Bahera, Chatra (Account No. 301210110000274) and for quashing of a letter dated 16.05.2020 issued by the General Manager, CCL, Piparwar Area, Chatra stopping all types of compensation and resettlement and rehabilitation payments. The final direction of the Division Bench is not disclosed in the available source extract.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 17 appears across highly varied legal contexts. Across these twelve matters, the section appears alongside provisions from the SARFAESI Act, the PMLA, labour and industrial tribunals, land acquisition statutes, and charity registration provisions. This signals that the section reference in the cause list does not by itself indicate a salary or perquisite dispute — researchers should examine the full judgment text to determine the operative statutory context before classifying a ruling.
Writ jurisdiction is the dominant procedural vehicle. The majority of the matters in this set were filed as writ petitions under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution before various High Courts, rather than as statutory appeals. This reflects the broad scope of writ jurisdiction in tax and quasi-tax proceedings in India.
Multiple forums are represented. The rulings span the Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madras, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Calcutta High Courts, as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Jodhpur Bench), indicating that matters touching Section 17 arise across the country without geographic concentration.
Outcome data is uniformly unavailable at the preview stage. All twelve entries record "Outcome not specified in source," reflecting a data-availability limitation rather than a legal pattern. Researchers relying on this index must retrieve the full judgment from the original court portal to determine the actual direction of each order.
Section 12A/12A(1) and registration disputes appear alongside Section 17 in the ITAT context. Case 10 (Shri Chaturadasji Maharaj Mandir Vikas vs CIT Exemption, Jaipur) is the sole ITAT ruling in this set and concerns rejection of registration under section 12AB and cancellation of provisional registration under section 12A(1) of the Act. Patterns specific to the charitable/religious trust registration context may emerge as additional ITAT rulings in this category are added to the corpus.

How to use this compilation

This index is designed as a first-pass research tool. Each entry identifies the forum, date, sections engaged, and the procedural posture of the matter as available in the source preview. Because all twelve entries currently show "Outcome not specified in source," users should treat this compilation as a docket-location resource: use the party names, bench, date, and ITA/writ petition numbers listed above to retrieve the full judgment from indiankanoon.org, the relevant High Court portal (e.g., mhc.tn.gov.in/judis for Madras, or the respective High Court websites), or the ITAT's own order repository at ITAT.gov.in.

Before relying on any ruling for a legal position, researchers should verify: (a) whether the order has been stayed, appealed further, or reversed by a superior court; (b) whether any CBDT circular, instruction, or notification has been issued that addresses the same point of law; and (c) whether the section reference in the cause list is the operative provision or merely a co-cited section. Cross-referencing with the full judgment text is non-negotiable — section numbers in a cause-list entry do not confirm that the court substantively interpreted or applied that provision.

For in-house tax teams and Big-4 associates, this compilation can serve as a starting checklist for a broader Section 17 landscape review. Legal practitioners should note that the diversity of forums and statutory contexts represented here means that no single analytical framework will apply to all twelve matters; each ruling must be evaluated on its own facts, forum, and the specific statutory provision that was actually in dispute.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 17 in Indian Courts: 12 Rulings Across Forums (2026)