9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-71 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of section 17(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 36,326 was not includible in the total income of the assessee ?" The facts leading to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 36,326 and exemption from tax was claimed by the assessee in respect thereof on the ground that it was a capital receipt and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. K. K. Roy [1972] 84 ITR 701, it could not be included in the taxable income. The Income-tax Officer, however, held that the amount in question was compensation received in connection with the termination of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities below. A copy of the decision of the Tribunal dated February 28, 1975, in ITA No. 3237 (Cal) of 1972-73, in the case of Ajit Kumar Bose relating to the assessment year 1970-71 was also placed before the Tribunal and it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the issue had been considered already by the Tribunal and the decision taken therein was applicable to the present case as the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay. Therefore, the amount received by the employee was not profits in lieu of salary within the meaning of section 17(3) of the Act and, as such, was not tax able as income. The facts being identical, the said decree governed this case also. In the premises, we answer the question referred to this court in this reference in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
