1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>High Court rules retirement benefits not taxable</h1> The High Court of Madras ruled in favor of the assessee in a case involving the assessment of whether amounts received upon leaving a partnership firm ... Income Issues involved: Assessment of whether the amount received by the assessee on leaving the firm represented capital receipt or revenue receipt.Summary:The High Court of Madras considered a case involving a partnership firm, 'Dhanalakshmi Pictures,' in which the assessee was a partner. Upon the assessee's retirement from the firm, a sum of Rs. 26,000 was paid to him in full settlement of his claims in the partnership business. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated this amount, along with a debit balance of Rs. 53,130.56 in the firm's books, as taxable income of the assessee. However, the Tribunal held that the sum received did not have a revenue character, leading to the reference question.Regarding the debit balance of Rs. 53,130.56, it was established that the remission of this debt by the firm could not be treated as income in the assessee's hands, following the principle that a forgiven debt cannot be considered income. The court cited the case of British Mexican Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Jackson to support this position.Regarding the sum of Rs. 26,000, the court analyzed whether it constituted a payment in respect of profits earned by the firm or a return of the assessee's share of capital. It was concluded that if the amount was related to profits already taxed at the firm level, it could not be taxed again in the hands of the partner. Additionally, the return of a partner's capital cannot be considered income. The court distinguished this case from precedents such as CIT v. P. R.A. L. Muthu Karuppan Chettiar and CIT v. S. Rm. Sathappa Chettiar, emphasizing the specific circumstances of the present case.Ultimately, the court answered the reference question in favor of the assessee, ruling that both the amounts of Rs. 53,130.56 and Rs. 26,000 were not taxable as income. The assessee was awarded costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
