2008 (12) TMI 14

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent of the United States of America. 2. In January, 1982, the assessee had applied for a job in the Voice of America which was a state owned broadcasting agency. In 1984, the assessee was informed that she had cleared the competitive test. But, she was never offered the job.  It is relevant to note that in 1977, a class action suit had been filed before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, United States entitled Carolee Brady Heartman, et al. v. Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State and Marc B. Nathanson, Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors: Civil Action No.77-2019 JR. The said class action had been brought on behalf of the women who had been denied employment in certain professions and technical po .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ceived her share out of US$ 508 million which was given to the entire class of 1100 claimants (except those claimants whose cases had been individually decided by then). 4. The question that has arisen in the present case is whether the said amount received by the assessee in the two assessment years in question would be covered within the expression 'profits in lieu of salary' as appearing in Section 17(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax had categorically found as a fact that there was no employer-employee relationship between the assessee and the Voice of America or the United States Government. Consequently, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the said amount received by the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (3) of the said Act. The case of the revenue is that the amounts received by the assessee fall under Section 17 (3)(iii) of the said Act. We have already extracted the relevant portion of Section 17(3)(iii) above. A plain reading thereof would indicate that the amount due or received whether in lump sum or otherwise by an assessee from any person must be in connection with the employment with that person. Sub-clause (A) refers to the period prior to an assessee joining such employment and sub-clause (B) refers to the period after cessation of an assessee's employment with another person. We have already noted above that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) clearly found as a fact that there was no employer-employee relationship. The In .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X