9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... constitute salary and thus cannot be taxed ? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the 'notional' interest on interest free deposit received in connection with the letting out of the property cannot be included in the rent received so as to constitute part of the annual letting value of the assessee's property determined under Section 23(1)(b) of the Act? 3. Insofar as the proposed question (b) above is concerned, there is no dispute that the same stands covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by virtue of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Asian Hotels Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Del) 84. Consequently, no question of law survives with regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not voluntary and, therefore, could not be construed as foregoing of salary. He noted that since the salary had been refunded in view of the legal requirements under the Companies Act, 1956, the same could not be held, as the assessee's income and, therefore, was not assessable. Consequently, the assessee got the relief of ₹ 10,17,112 in respect of the refunded amount. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned order, has accepted the finding returned by the CIT(A) and has rejected the plea raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee being the managing director of the company (M/s Alcatel Modi Network Systems Ltd.) was entitled to manager ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns passed in the AGMs indicated above, that the refund made by the assessee was on account of statutory provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956. The further conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was that the amount originally paid to the assessee over and above the limits prescribed in the Companies Act, 1956 could not even be construed as salary so as to fall within the fold of taxation under Section 15 of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal confirmed the conclusion of the CIT(A) that the amount of ₹ 10,17,112 was not assessable as an income. 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have examined the facts as well as the legal position in detail and we find that the Tribunal has rightly confirmed the finding returned by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
