2012 (7) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rit of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction;   ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to re-compute the income tax liability of the petitioners by applying the normal rate of tax applicable to Association of Persons for the assessment year 1997-98 in lieu of the maximum marginal rate of tax applicable under Section 164(1) of the Act and by deleting the levy of interest under Section 243 B of the Income Tax Act.   iii) direct the respondents not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioners for demand and recovery of the differential tax for the assessment year 1997-98 based on Exts.P4 series orders of the 1st respondent.   iv) grant a stay of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng officer as well as the CIT (Appeals) have decided against the assessee for the reason that the benefits are extended to the dependents and relatives of the employees also. Now, the question to be considered is whether the benefits extended to the members of the family of the employees in fact amounted to benefits given to the employees alone or not. In all welfare measures, whether under Government or in Public Sector, benefits extended to the employees means benefits extended to their family members also. For example, Government employees are covered by Medical Benefits Schemes. The schemes are extended not only to the particular employee-individual alone; the immediate dependent relatives of the employee are also entitled for the benef .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re erred in levying tax at the maximum marginal rate. The assessee-trust is liable to be taxed in the status of AOP at the respective normal slab rate. The assessee succeeds in its appeals."   In that view of the matter, I asked the learned counsel for the income tax department whether the department has preferred any appeal against Ext.P8 order. On instructions, he submits that no appeal has been preferred. Since the Tribunal has granted relief holding that the petitioners are entitled to benefit mentioned in Proviso (iv) to Sub-section (1) of Section 164 of the Income Tax Act, I set aside the impugned orders, Ext.P4 series of orders and remit the matter to the assessing authority to re-calculate the income tax liability of the petit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X