|
IV. Direct Taxes Case Laws:
1. CIT Vs. Sri Vijay Singh Kadan, I.T.A. No. 714/2015, Date of Order: 14.09.2015, High Court of Delhi
Whether
the distance of agricultural land, in terms of Section 2(14)(iii)(b)
has to be measured along the road and not as per crow's flight/ aerial
distance. And Whether distance up to the land should be considered or up
to the village within which such land is situated?
It is
held that for the purposes of Section 2 (14) (iii) (b) of the Act, the
distance had to be measured from the agricultural land in question to
the outer limit of the municipality by road and not by the straight line
or the aerial route. The distance has to be measured from the land in
question itself and not from the village in which the land is situated.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. CIT Vs. Pritam Das Narang, I.T.A. No. 203/2014, Date of Order: 16.09.2015, High Court of Delhi
Whether
the payment made by the prospective employer as compensation towards
breach of promise and not for any services rendered or to be rendered
could not be taxed under Section 17(3)(iii) of the Act.
Held Yes
Section
17 (3) (iii) (A) pre-supposes the existence of an employment, i.e., a
relationship of employee and employer between the Assessee and the
person who makes the payment of "any amount" in terms of Section 17 (3)
(iii) of the Act. Likewise, Section 17 (3) (iii) (B) also pre-supposes
the existence of the relationship of employer and employee between the
person who makes the payment of the amount and the Assessee. It
envisages the amount being received by the Assessee "after cessation of
his employment". Therefore, the words in Section 17 (3) (iii) cannot be
read disjunctively to overlook the essential facet of the provision,
viz., the existence of ‘employment’ i.e. a relationship of employer and
employee between the person who makes the payment of the amount and the
Assessee. The Court accordingly concurs with the concurrent view of the
CIT (A) and the ITAT that this was a case where there was no
commencement of the
employment and that the offer by ACEE to the Assessee was withdrawn
even prior to the commencement of such employment. The amount received
by the Assessee was a capital receipt and could not be taxed under the
head 'profits in lieu of salary'.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now