9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the salary income of the assessee could be computed after excluding the amount paid to his ex-wife by way of alimony and maintenance expenses to their minor son? Analysis: The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question of law to the High Court regarding the computation of the assessee's salary income after deducting the amount paid to his ex-wife as alimony and maintenance expenses for their minor son. The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 7,800 from his salary for these payments, which was contested by the Revenue. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal accepted it, leading to the current reference to the High Court. The key argument presented by the counsel for the assessee was that the payments made to the ex-wife constituted a diversion of income by overriding title, thereby reducing the salary income of the assessee at the source. The counsel highlighted the legal background, including the consent decree from the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court, the agreement with the employers to deduct the specified amount from the salary, and the intention of the assessee to fulfill the payment obligations. The counsel relied on various court decisions to support the claim of diversion of income. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that there was no diversion of income by overriding title in this case. They argued that the payments to the ex-wife were merely an application of income by the assessee for alimony, and the method of payment, whether deducted from the salary or paid by the employers, did not constitute diversion of income. The Revenue relied on a specific court decision to support their position. After considering the arguments and reviewing the facts of the case along with relevant legal precedents, the High Court concluded that there was no diversion of income by overriding title in this instance. The Court emphasized the distinction between an obligation to apply income out of earnings and an obligation that diverts income before reaching the assessee. In this case, the Court found that the payments to the ex-wife were a mode of applying the income that had already accrued to the assessee, rather than diverting the income before it reached him. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, rejecting the claim of the assessee for deduction based on diversion of income. In conclusion, the High Court answered the question referred to them in the negative, supporting the Revenue's position. The Court also decided that there would be no order as to costs in the given circumstances.
|
