9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Determination of whether the amounts received by the assessees from their employers are liable to be taxed as "profits in lieu of salary" and whether the amounts are exempt under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Judgment Summary: Lachhman Dass's Case: Lachhman Dass, an employee of Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd., received Rs. 9,500 from his employer as partial compensation for losses suffered during the partition. The Tribunal considered this amount as "profit in lieu of salary." However, the High Court disagreed, stating that not all payments from an employer to an employee constitute "profits in lieu of salary." Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that payments made on personal grounds or for reasons unrelated to employment do not fall under this category. The Court found no element of remuneration in the payments to Lachhman Dass, ruling that they were made on personal and sympathetic grounds, not as salary. The Court held that the amount of Rs. 9,500 was not taxable as "profits in lieu of salary" and was exempt from tax. Jai Karan Kohli's Case: Jai Karan Kohli, an employee of two sugar mills, received Rs. 5,000 as compensation for losses due to partition. The Tribunal treated this amount as taxable under "profits in lieu of salary." The High Court, however, disagreed with this classification. It reiterated that not all payments from an employer to an employee qualify as "profits in lieu of salary." The Court emphasized that these payments were made on personal grounds, not as remuneration for services rendered. The Court found no connection between the payments and the employment relationship, ruling that they were exempt from tax. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 5,000 was held not assessable to tax in Jai Karan Kohli's case. In conclusion, the High Court held that the payments made to both assessees were not taxable as "profits in lieu of salary" and were exempt from tax under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court answered the first question in the negative, stating that the amounts were not assessable to tax. The second question was answered in the affirmative, confirming that the amounts were not exempt under section 10(14). No costs were awarded in these references.
|
