9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in December, 1961, his services as managing director were terminated by the end of December, 1961. Ishwar Dass claimed that thereby he was put to loss as he would have, in the normal circumstances under the original resolution, continued to remain in service up to the month of January, 1964. The board of directors, therefore, considering his submission allowed him a consolidated amount of Rs. 15,200 by way of compensation for the estimated loss due to his premature retirement. He was also allowed an amount of Rs. 6,300 as salary for the period from April 1, 1960, to the end of December, 1961. For the assessment year 1962-63, Ishwar Dass filed his return disclosing an income of Rs. 6,911 which partly consisted of Rs. 6,300 as salary enjo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 15,200 was rightly taxed as profit in lieu of salary, within the meaning of section 17(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " It has been sought to be urged that under the 1922 Act, as had existed after the amendment of 1955, the term " profits in lieu of salary " included the words " whether solely as compensation for loss of employment or for any other consideration ". The words, it is pointed out, have not been incorporated in s. 17(3) of the 1961 Act and, therefore, it should be assumed that the type of payment received by the assessee in the present case is not covered by s. 17(3). Reference has also been made to a dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses of termination of services of such managing directors. These being specific provisions, it is pleaded, should have been applied in this case and not the general provisions as contained in s. 17. Prima facie-it appears that there is some force in the contention raised by the assessee. However, we find that no such plea was at all raised at any stage before the I.T. authorities or even before the Appellate Tribunal. The question referred to us by the Tribunal is also confined to the interpretation of the provisions contained in s. 17 of the 1961 Act. We are required to give our opinion on that question. As already noted above, if those provisions are taken into account, the amount of Rs. 1 5,200 given to the assessee in the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
