9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (3) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome-tax Act, 1922, and arises out of the Tribunal's order in Income-tax Appeal No. 583 of 1951-52. The following question has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, for judgment: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the sum of ₹ 10,000 received by the assessee is liable to be assessed as the assessee's income?" 2. The assessee is K.B.M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irector of the company; and (3) Shri P.B. Kale, managing director of the company. These three persons were collectively paid by the managing agents a monthly remuneration of ₹ 2,000 which was divided amongst the three persons in the ratio of 3:4:9. In the meeting of the board of directors of the managing agents held on 8th May, 1945, the following resolution was passed: "Resolved u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the taxing authorities. The question is whether this amount can be said to be compensation for loss of employment within the meaning of explanation 2 to section 7(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 5. It is to be noted that the assessee continues to be the governing director of the managing agents, although his remuneration has been reduced. As a matter of fact, it is on account of the commuted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich he was receiving a remuneration of £6,000 a year. By a subsequent agreement he released the company from its obligation to pay him the pension and agreed to accept a salary of £2,000 a year in consideration of the company agreeing to pay him £40,000. It was held that neither the pension nor the sum paid to commute it constituted profit of an office within the meaning of rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
