2008 (8) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,17,112 refunded by the assessee did not constitute salary and thus cannot be taxed ? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the 'notional' interest on interest free deposit received in connection with the letting out of the property cannot be included in the rent received so as to constitute part of the annual letting value of the assessee's property determined under Section 23(1)(b) of the Act? 3. Insofar as the proposed question (b) above is concerned, there is no dispute that the same stands covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by virtue of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Asian Hotels Ltd. (2008....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... held that the said refund to the assessee's employer was not voluntary and, therefore, could not be construed as foregoing of salary. He noted that since the salary had been refunded in view of the legal requirements under the Companies Act, 1956, the same could not be held, as the assessee's income and, therefore, was not assessable. Consequently, the assessee got the relief of Rs. 10,17,112 in respect of the refunded amount. 6. Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by virtue of the impugned order, has accepted the finding returned by the CIT(A) and has rejected the plea raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the assessee being the managing director of the company (M/s Alcat....