2014 (2) TMI 1022 - ITAT MUMBAI
M/s. Shri Nidhi Corporation Versus Addl. Commissioner Income Tax
Disallowance u/s 10(10B) of the Act - Premium paid on Keyman Insurance Policies - Revenue was of the view that the policies were not Keyman Insurance Policies as given in the Explanation to section 10(10D) of the Act – Held that:- Once the assessee h ......
1996 (3) TMI 162 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
Philips India Limited. Versus Income-Tax Officer.
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Tax At Source ......
........... that the workmen immediately prior to their separation were employed by the assessee to carry out the work of a manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory nature. No workman was employed by the company in the managerial or supervisory capacity. No contrary finding is given in the order. No specific case was pointed out to reveal that this particular employee did not satisfy the test of section 10(10B) due to that particular reason. 25. In view of the above, it can be presumed that while forming the opinion that a sum of Rs. 50,000 is deductible under section 10(10B) of the Act, in respect of each of the worker who opted for Voluntary Separation Scheme, assessee acted honestly and fairly and there was no mala fide on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, in our opinion, the case of the assessee falls beyond the ken of section 201. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions. 26. In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed
1985 (12) TMI 115 - ITAT HYDERABAD
First Income-Tax Officer Versus SK. Khandekar.
Exemption, Retrenchment Compensation ......
........... as in the Industrial Disputes Act. The scope of the section has to be understood in reference to the Industrial Disputes Act, because if every person who carries out some work in the course of his employment is to be considered as a workman, then the definition in section 17 would become meaningless. It is seen from the cases cited on behalf of the assessee and relied upon by the AAC that the persons concerned in those cases were actually governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand, in the present case, the assessee could, by no stretch of imagination, be governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, because he was a company secretary and in charge of the company itself. The fact that he was carrying out certain clerical work does not make him a clerk so as to be regarded as a workman. In the circumstances, the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 10(10B). We, therefore, reverse the order of the AAC and restore the assessment. The appeal is allowed.
1984 (10) TMI 96 - ITAT DELHI-A
PL. Goel. Versus Income-Tax Officer.
Retrenchment Compensation ......
........... ployees. He does not even supervise the work of other senior officers and even the clerical staff. He was to be the friend, philosopher and guide of the various machinery, equipments and vehicles in various projects. He had no administrative control in the office where he was employed. Other employees were not subordinate to him. As a matter of fact, he has no subordinate staff working under him. 10. Looking to the aforesaid facts and the entirety of the circumstances, it is clear that a consultant (as the assessee was) cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be engaged in any administrative or managerial work. So the assessee is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s). The finding of the AAC to the contrary is not correct. Since the assessee is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, compensation of Rs. 21,908.20 received by the assessee is exempt from tax under section 10(10B). 11 to 1 3. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
1984 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court
Mahendra Singh Dhantwal Versus Hindustan Motors Limited
Compensation in the amount of Rs. 20,000 was awarded only in lieu of reinstatement - it is conceded that the appellant's service was liable to stand terminated under the contract of service, the back-wages would be payable only for the period commenc ......
1981 (10) TMI 58 - ITAT BOMBAY-D
INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus MP SRIVASTAVA.
........... ies and contended that sufficient materials were not advanced by the assessee before the lower authorities in order to enable them to come to a proper conclusion. 9. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by both the sides and we find that the issue can be decided only after bringing more materials on record. We, therefore, restore this matter to the file of the CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to examine the necessary materials which may be produced by the assessee to determine whether the assessee was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and whether, in the light of the statutory and case law on the point, the assessee could be treated as having received retrenchment compensation. In this connection, the CIT(A) may with benefit go into the Supreme Court decisions as the well as Labour Court decision relied upon by the assessee. 10. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the assessee s appeal be may treated as allowed for statistical purposes.