Appeal allowed: Lump-sum settlement held capital, not "profits in lieu of salary" under s.17(3), linked to share relinquishment

The HC allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and held the lump-sum settlement was not liable as profits in lieu of salary under s.17(3) but rather related to relinquishment of share claims and thus characterized as capital in nature. The Court found the Tribunal erred by bifurcating the settlement into salary and capital gains, misapplying the distinction between perquisites and profits in lieu of salary, and ignoring that employment had already ceased and the CLB petition sought registration of shares, not termination-related relief. The question of law was answered in favour of the appellant-assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bifurcation of settlement amount into capital gains and income from salary.
2. Treatment of compensation received for relinquishment of rights in shares.
3. Applicability of Section 17 (3) (iii) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Validity of Tribunal's decision to bifurcate the settlement amount.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bifurcation of Settlement Amount into Capital Gains and Income from Salary:
The appellant-assessee challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to bifurcate the settlement amount of INR 3.03 crores into two parts: one part treated as capital gains under Section 48 and the other as income from salary under Section 17 (3) (iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's approach was to classify 15,000 shares as eligible for capital gains and the remaining 35,000 shares as taxable under the head of salaries. This bifurcation was not advocated by the respondents and was an exercise undertaken by the Tribunal on its own volition.

2. Treatment of Compensation Received for Relinquishment of Rights in Shares:
The assessee, who was employed with Tek Travels Pvt. Ltd. (TTPL) and entitled to sweat equity, received 50,000 sweat equity shares. Upon termination of employment, TTPL refused to register these shares in the assessee's name, leading to litigation before the Company Law Board (CLB). A settlement agreement was reached, and the assessee received INR 3.03 crores for relinquishing all rights to the shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially treated this amount as income from salaries, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] held it as capital gains. The Tribunal, however, partially reversed this, leading to the present appeal.

3. Applicability of Section 17 (3) (iii) of the Income Tax Act:
Section 17 (3) (iii) deals with 'profits in lieu of salary,' which includes compensation received in connection with the termination of employment. The Tribunal and AO's view that the settlement amount was connected to the employer-employee relationship and thus should be taxed under this section was challenged. The High Court noted that the employment had ended before the litigation and that the settlement was related to the shares, not employment termination.

4. Validity of Tribunal's Decision to Bifurcate the Settlement Amount:
The High Court found that the Tribunal's decision to bifurcate the settlement amount was unjustified. The settlement consideration was connected to the relinquishment of rights in the shares, not to the termination of employment. The Tribunal failed to recognize the distinction between 'perquisites' and 'profits in lieu of salary' under Section 17. The consideration received was for the unconditional and irrevocable relinquishment of rights to the shares, making it a capital asset transfer.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in bifurcating the settlement amount and treating part of it as income from salary. The settlement consideration was to be recognized as capital gains. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside. The question of law was answered in favor of the appellant-assessee, confirming that the settlement consideration was liable to be recognized as capital gains.

---