<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1984 (9) TMI 102 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61758</link>
    <description>Receipt on surrender of earned leave while the employee continued in service was analysed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 as to whether it constituted salary or a perquisite. The Tribunal view treated accumulated earned leave as an intangible capital asset, and its encashment as conversion of that asset into money rather than remuneration for services rendered. The fact that the payment arose under the employment terms, or that section 10(10AA) specifically exempts leave encashment on retirement, did not require a finding that leave encashment during service was taxable. On the facts considered, the amount did not fall within the charging ambit of salary and was not taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:48:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (9) TMI 102 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61758</link>
      <description>Receipt on surrender of earned leave while the employee continued in service was analysed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 as to whether it constituted salary or a perquisite. The Tribunal view treated accumulated earned leave as an intangible capital asset, and its encashment as conversion of that asset into money rather than remuneration for services rendered. The fact that the payment arose under the employment terms, or that section 10(10AA) specifically exempts leave encashment on retirement, did not require a finding that leave encashment during service was taxable. On the facts considered, the amount did not fall within the charging ambit of salary and was not taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61758</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>