https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756802 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. en-us Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 12:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756802 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756802