Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 344 - MADRAS HIGH COURTDeduction of TDS on the amount paid and payable to the workmen being the members of the first respondent - The workmen were made entitled for certain payment consequent upon the closure of the Industry - Single Judge took up the issue of due payment is to be construed as a special package coming under the second proviso to Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act as against the case sought to be projected by the appellant that it would come under Section 10(10C) being the Voluntary Retirement Scheme - HELD THAT:- Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant seek to contend that the case on hand would come under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, in which case, the amount quantified is only the Voluntary Retirement payment, we do not subscribe to the said view expressed. Incidentally, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that if it is a case under first proviso to Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, there is a cap with respect to the amount quantified - ₹ 50,000/-. This will only militate against the members of the first respondent. The said contention also, in our considered view, cannot be countenanced. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, it is a case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that the case would fall under the second proviso. We do not find any perversity in such a finding rendered by the learned Single Judge.Therefore, the interpretation given has to be accepted with respect to the nomenclature of the Scheme. Though it is referred as Voluntary Retirement Scheme, one has to see the object and intent behind it. When once a factual finding is given that it is a special package, a different view is not possible. We may note that the case on hand involves a chequered history with respect to the running of Industry qua rights of the workmen. Therefore, this is not a case of voluntary retirement by the workmen, but, on the other hand, brought forth by contingency. Therefore, the reason of the learned Single Judge bringing the case under the second proviso is perfectly in order. We have no hesitation in confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.
|