9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the workman will be exempted Rs. 5,00,000/- from the income tax as per Income Tax Act, So the management have illegally deducted a sum from his retirement benefits. HELD THAT:- As on perusal of clause 10(C) of Section 10 of Income Tax Act, revealed that payments on account of voluntary retirement are to be exempted from income tax only if the schemes governing the said payments are in accordance with the guidelines prescribed in this behalf - As petitioner would submit that the scheme floated by the petitioner Company is not by any law. Since it was only contract between the petitioner and the second respondent and he was allowed to retire on voluntary retirement scheme. Therefore, Section 10(C) of the said Act is not at all a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second respondent had joined in the petitioner Company on 01.05.1975 as Flavour Assistant in Flavour Department. He was retired under voluntary retirement scheme on 29.08.1994. Prior to his retirement, he was not allotted any work and he was put in common pool without giving any work along with other few employees. At the time of his retirement, he was paid only Rs. 2,07,356/- instead of Rs. 3,43,639.27/-. The petitioner had deducted from the terminal benefit as income tax on the voluntary retirement benefits to the tune of Rs. 1,15,488/-. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had put up a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in respect of employees working in the Factory. Accordingly, the second respondent ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as on the date of the voluntary retirement of the second respondent, the deduction was made to the tune of Rs. 1,15,488/-. At that relevant point of time, only approved voluntary retirement scheme was exempted from tax deduction at source. Further, it is not the case of the second respondent that after deduction of tax at source was not paid to the income tax department by the petitioner. Therefore, if the deduction was not justified, the question of payment of the same to the second respondent does not arise. It was deducted and paid by the petitioner to the Income Tax Department. If at all the amount was not limited, the petitioner is answerable to his auditor while filing income tax. He vehemently contended that after period of twelve y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the second respondent in terms of income tax. The wages due to the period of work done by the employees would be in an ambit of Section 33 (c ) (2) of ID Act. Under the voluntary retirement scheme, the amount payable to the workman will be exempted Rs. 5,00,000/- from the income tax as per Income Tax Act. So the management have illegally deducted a sum of Rs. 1,15,488/- from his retirement benefits. The writ petition was filed after period of nearly two years. Further the petitioner failed to produce any challan or receipt from Income Tax Department as if the deduction amount of Rs. 1,15,488/- was paid to the Income Tax Department. 7. However on perusal of clause 10(C) of Section 10 of Income Tax Act, revealed that payments on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
