https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340767 A government-sanctioned employee package was assessed by its substance and purpose, not its VRS label. The claim that employees were entitled to 72 months' salary as closure compensation was rejected because writ jurisdiction could not be used to rewrite the terms of a special package fixed for the undertaking. On tax treatment, the same package was treated as special compensation for employees of a closed or financially distressed undertaking, bringing the receipts within the protection of section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act rather than the taxable retirement-benefit regime. Deduction of tax at source from the severance amounts was disallowed, and amounts already deducted were to be refunded. en-us Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Apr 2026 14:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340767 A government-sanctioned employee package was assessed by its substance and purpose, not its VRS label. The claim that employees were entitled to 72 months' salary as closure compensation was rejected because writ jurisdiction could not be used to rewrite the terms of a special package fixed for the undertaking. On tax treatment, the same package was treated as special compensation for employees of a closed or financially distressed undertaking, bringing the receipts within the protection of section 10(10B) of the Income-tax Act rather than the taxable retirement-benefit regime. Deduction of tax at source from the severance amounts was disallowed, and amounts already deducted were to be refunded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340767