<?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>1960 (11) TMI 22 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49532</link>
    <description>A voluntary payment by a former employer is taxable as salary or profit in lieu of salary only if it is received in consideration of employment or as remuneration for past services; where the facts show a personal gift made in token of affection and esteem, it falls outside the charging provision. On the evidence discussed, the payment was characterised as a gift rather than a salary-related receipt, because the surrounding circumstances and later confirmation by the donor did not show any employment-linked consideration. The amount was therefore treated as not taxable under section 7(1) read with Explanation 2, while the dissent would have treated it as taxable remuneration for past services.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88012" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 22 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49532</link>
      <description>A voluntary payment by a former employer is taxable as salary or profit in lieu of salary only if it is received in consideration of employment or as remuneration for past services; where the facts show a personal gift made in token of affection and esteem, it falls outside the charging provision. On the evidence discussed, the payment was characterised as a gift rather than a salary-related receipt, because the surrounding circumstances and later confirmation by the donor did not show any employment-linked consideration. The amount was therefore treated as not taxable under section 7(1) read with Explanation 2, while the dissent would have treated it as taxable remuneration for past services.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>