News Update

India received foreign remittance of USD 111 bn in 2022, says UNPitroda resigns as Chairman of Indian Overseas Congress over racist remarkGovt hosts workshop on improving Ease of Doing Business in Mining sectorI-T - Anything made taxable by rule-making authority u/s 17(2)(viii) should be 'perquisite' in form of 'fringe benefits or amenity': SCCus - Drawback - Revenue contends that appeal of exporter ought to have been dismissed by Tribunal as not maintainable since correct remedy was filing a revision application with Central government - Appeal disposed of: HCCus - CHA - AA has clearly brought out the modus adopted by the appellant and how he was a party to the entire under valuation exercise - Factual finding affirmed by Tribunal - No question of law arises for consideration: HCGST - Proper officer has not applied his mind while passing the order; confirmed demand by opining that reply is not satisfactory - Proper Officer is directed to withdraw all punitive actions taken against petitioner pursuant to impugned order: HCGST - Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion - Non-application of mind - Order set aside and matter remitted for re-adjudication: HCGST - Cancellation of registration for non-filing of returns - Suspension/revocation of license would be counterproductive and works against the interest of revenue - Pragmatic view needs to be taken to permit petitioner to carry on his business: HC86 flights of AI Express cancelled as crew goes on mass sick leaveTax Refund Conundrum - Odyssey of Legal MisstepsI-T- AO not barred from issuing more than one SCN; Fresh SCN seeking information is not without jurisdiction, more so where HC itself directed re-doing of assessment: HCMurthy launches Capacity Building on Design and Entrepreneurship programCash, liquor & drugs worth Rs 110 Cr seized from Jharkhand ahead of pollsI-T- Appeal before CIT(A) (NFAC) is rightly dismissed where it has been delayed by over one year without just & reasonable cause: ITATPoll-induced stress: 2 Bihar officials die of heart attack at polling boothsSixth Edition of Commandants' Conclave held in PuneSome Gujarat villages keep away from polls over unfulfilled demands from governmentRoof-hugging inflation nudges Argentina to print first lot of 10,000 notes of pesoInvestigation finds presence of ‘boys club’ strands of culture at American bank regulatorUS cancels licence to some firms found exporting materials to Huawei
 
I-T - Whether if non-compete fee is received as salary, any obligation to pay interest under Sections 234B & C, arises - NO: SC

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, DEC 19, 2016: THE issue before the Apex Court is - Whether if non-compete fee is paid in the form of salary under Sec 192, there is no question of any advance tax nor any interest obligation that arises. YES is the verdict.

Facts of the case

The
assessee was founder director of Log-In Systems Innovations Limited, the company engaged in the business of software development and consultancy. The company was acquired by one Synergy Credit Corporation Limited, as a result of which assessee was offered a position of Executive Director in the Acquirer Company for a gross compensation of Rs.1,77,200/- per annum. An Acquisition Agreement was executed on a going concern basis for a total consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. On the same date, a Non-Compete Agreement was signed between the assessee and the Acquirer Company imposing a restriction on the assessee from carrying on any business of similar nature for a period of five years for which the assessee was paid a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-. The question that arose in the proceedings commencing with the Assessment Order is whether the amount of Rs.21 lakhs was on account of 'salary' or the same was a 'capital receipt'. The HC ruled that such a payment was 'salary amount' on which interest would be chargeable/leviable u/s 234B and 234C.

On appeal, the Apex Court held that,

++ against salary a deduction, at the requisite rate at which income tax is to be paid by the person entitled to receive the salary, is required to be made by the employer failing which the employer is liable to pay simple interest. In cases where receipt is by way of salary, deductions u/s 192 is required to be made. No question of payment of advance tax under Part 'C' of Chapter VII can arise in cases of receipt by way of 'salary'. If that is so, Part 'F' of Chapter VII dealing with interest chargeable in certain cases (Section 234B – Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax and Section 234C – Interest for deferment of advance tax) would have no application to the present situation in view of the finality that has to be attached to the decision that what was received by the assessee under the Non-Compete Agreement was by way of salary. For the said reasons, the appeals are allowed; the order of the High Court so far as the payment of interest u/s 234B and Section 234C is set aside.

(See 2016-TIOL-234-SC-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.


Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.